Insights from Skills Strategies in the European Union

This chapter presents nine key lessons learnt from developing and implementing skills strategies in the European Union (EU).1 The lessons result from extensive research and consultations, including desktop research, insights from a questionnaire, expert meetings, interviews with government officials on selected case studies, and discussions with stakeholders during the OECD Skills Strategy Peer-Learning Workshop and the Lessons Learnt Workshop. These lessons offer valuable guidance to policymakers, enabling them to develop new skills strategies or update existing ones. These lessons aim to provide practical, actionable advice to aid in the creation of robust, responsive and forward-thinking skills strategies.

The following nine lessons capture the essential characteristics of successful skills strategies:

In the sections below, each lesson is described in detail. Its importance is explained and supported by evidence from the cross-country mapping and insights from consulted stakeholders during the project. Concrete examples from EU countries are provided to illustrate these lessons. These examples highlight the practical aspects of strategy development and implementation, showcasing successful approaches and innovative practices.

Skills strategies enable countries to adopt a co-ordinated and inclusive approach to developing and implementing skills policies, providing strategic policy direction for the medium to long term. The content and form of these strategies can vary significantly depending on their objectives, ranging from high-level documents that informally guide policy to detailed strategies with implementation plans that more directly influence policy. It is crucial to clearly define objectives from the outset, as this allows countries to more effectively determine the necessary content and form for their strategies, thereby facilitating a smoother and more efficient development and implementation process.

Skills strategies are essential for enabling countries to thrive in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world. They allow countries to effectively address the skills implications of global megatrends such as digital and green transitions, globalisation, demographic change and more (OECD, 2023[1]; 2019[2]). Developing and implementing skills strategies necessitate comprehensive co-ordination and collaboration among relevant government actors and stakeholders, each with distinct responsibilities and interests.

An essential initial step is to establish consensus on the strategy's objectives. Clearly defining these objectives from the outset is crucial as they significantly influence the content and format of skills strategies. This clarity facilitates a smoother and more efficient development and implementation process while also effectively managing stakeholders' expectations regarding the tangible outputs and outcomes resulting from the strategy's implementation. Consequently, clear objectives for skills strategies allow countries to develop and implement necessary skills reforms more effectively.

Two distinct yet closely interrelated types of objectives have significant implications for the content (i.e. scope) and format of skills strategies. These implications are illustrated in Figure 2.1, which provides concrete examples of skills strategies across the European Union.

First, strategic objectives define what existing skills challenges or gaps the strategy aims to address. They reflect a country's ambitions to tackle pressing skills challenges, such as minimising skills shortages; enhancing performance in certain areas of the skills system, such as higher education and lifelong learning; or addressing the specific needs of demographic groups, such as youth and women. Defining clear strategic objectives helps set a realistic and relevant scope for the strategy, accurately reflecting countries’ most pressing needs and aspirations.

Second, operational objectives define how countries intend to instrumentalise their skills strategy in order to achieve their strategic objectives. Operational objectives guide how the strategy aims to strengthen skills outcomes. In practice, this could entail more direct means, such as overhauling major elements of the skills system and introducing targeted initiatives to address skills gaps, or indirect means, such as raising awareness about the importance of skills and building stakeholder commitment to skills policy reform. The decision on whether the strategy should aim to directly or indirectly influence policy will shape not only the strategy’s format (as covered in this lesson) but also its approach to implementation (see Lesson 8).

It is essential that countries agree on both strategic and operational objectives from the outset of the strategy development process. This alignment enables government actors and stakeholders to agree on the strategy's scope and format while also setting clear expectations for the desired outputs and outcomes. This clarity also allows countries to plan the development and implementation phases more effectively, thereby enhancing the strategy's overall effectiveness and efficiency.

Setting the strategic objectives of the skills strategy involves designing them to meet various national needs and aspirations. These objectives are typically outlined at the outset of each strategy, supported by a comprehensive assessment of whether the skills system is effectively developing and utilising necessary skills to meet current and future demands. This assessment integrates both quantitative and qualitative evidence (see Lesson 4) and incorporates insights from all relevant government ministries and agencies (see Lesson 6) as well as external stakeholders (see Lesson 7). Typically, EU countries select a concise yet diverse set of strategic objectives, numbering around three to ten on average.

The strategic objectives chosen by EU countries often share similarities, reflecting common external pressures (e.g. digital and green transitions, ageing populations), skills challenges (e.g. skills shortages), and aspirations (e.g. promoting lifelong learning). However, variations exist in the specific topics covered, reflecting unique national contexts.

For instance, most skills strategies cover common topics, such as improving the labour market relevance of higher education and vocational education and training (VET) and promoting lifelong learning. This reflects shared challenges across EU countries regarding the need to address skills shortages and rapidly changing skills requirements due to digital and green transitions. However, countries respond to these common challenges in different ways depending on their political, economic, social and environmental contexts. For example, attracting foreign talent or retaining domestic talent is only a focus in a subset of countries, such as Bulgaria, Latvia, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, which are experiencing significant emigration and rapid population ageing (OECD, 2017[3]; 2023[4]; 2020[5]; 2019[6]; 2020[7]). Similarly, improving data governance is a focus in only a small subset of countries, most notably Luxembourg (OECD, 2023[8]). This emphasis arises from the unique challenges of anticipating and planning for skills supply and demand in a nation that relies heavily on cross-border workers to meet its skills needs.

Skills strategies often frame these strategic objectives differently, potentially influenced by how these challenges are characterised in public discourse. For instance, many countries have minimising skills shortages as their strategic objective, while others characterise skills shortages as the context and set as their strategic objective specific policy actions for overcoming these shortages. In either case, the strategic objective captures what skills challenge the country aims to respond to and why the skills strategy is needed.

As described above, setting these strategic objectives involves assessing the skills system's performance (see Lesson 4) and considering the length of the strategy's implementation cycle (see Lesson 8), with the latter helping countries anticipate how trends such as the digital and green transitions, the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), and others will impact the supply and demand for specific skills (e.g. cognitive, professional and technical, social and emotional skills) in certain industries (e.g. services, manufacturing) within this period. This, in turn, informs the choice of policy actions that the strategy aims to implement, ensuring its relevance and responsiveness to evolving needs.

In a landscape of diverse skills challenges and limited resources, defining a concise set of strategic objectives enhances efficiency by realistically shaping the strategy's scope, thereby increasing its feasibility for effective implementation. This approach not only optimises resource allocation but also fosters alignment among stakeholders and enhances accountability in achieving measurable outcomes. Clear strategic objectives serve as a guiding framework, enabling continuous adaptation and refinement of the skills strategy in response to evolving economic and societal needs.

Setting the operational objectives of a skills strategy is crucial once countries have established their strategic objectives. Operational objectives delineate how the strategy will be implemented to achieve the strategic objectives. In practical terms, setting operational objectives involves choosing whether the strategy will primarily influence policy making and skills outcomes indirectly – such as by enhancing awareness of skills issues and fostering stakeholder commitment to policy reforms – or directly, such as by implementing comprehensive policy reforms or launching targeted initiatives to address skills gaps.

Operational objectives, while often less explicitly stated than strategic objectives, shape the format of skills strategies (see Figure 2.2). Generally, strategies aimed at indirectly influencing policy making tend to take the form of high-level strategic policy documents. These documents analyse skills performance, identify challenges, and offer broad policy guidance with high-level policy recommendations. Conversely, strategies aiming for direct influence tend to take the form of detailed policy documents that not only analyse skills challenges but also propose specific policy actions and often include implementation plans.

Across the European Union, countries vary in their operational objectives for their skills strategies. Data from the OECD’s mapping exercise (see Figure 2.3) reveals that 56% of skills strategies across the European Union are geared towards influencing policy making indirectly. These strategies aim to raise awareness of certain skills topics, such as reducing skills shortages and promoting a culture of lifelong learning, elevating the profile of skills more generally on the public policy agenda and building stakeholder commitment to skills policy reform.

Notable examples of countries opting for high-level strategic policy documents that aim to influence skills policy and outcomes less directly include Austria and the Netherlands. In Austria, the strategy opted for a more indirect influence on policy making by presenting an in-depth assessment of the skills system’s performance and proposing general policy directions. In the Netherlands (see Box 2.1), the skills strategy aimed to raise the profile of lifelong learning on the policy agenda by bringing together multiple ministries, the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER) and other stakeholders to assess and discuss the country’s priorities and identify areas for improvement.

However, a significant number of countries opt for more direct influence, with 52% implementing specific skills policies directly through their strategies. These include examples such as Bulgaria and Hungary, as well as Croatia and Finland, who reported that their strategy resulted in the implementation of specific skills policies. These strategies outline policy priorities, recommendations, and detailed implementation guidance, including responsibilities, funding sources and timelines.

Many countries opting for a more direct influence integrate implementation plans directly into their strategies. For instance, Figure 2.3 reveals that 36% of skills strategies include comprehensive plans for implementing all outlined policy recommendations and measures. Hungary’s Framework Strategy for the Policy of Lifelong Learning 2014-2020 (see Box 2.1) exemplifies this approach by detailing specific intervention areas and policy actions aimed at leveraging European Structural and Investment Funds (Government of Hungary, 2014[9]).

Conversely, other countries choose to develop implementation plans separate from their strategies. Across the European Union, 52% of skills strategies have led to the creation of distinct implementation plans. Latvia and Bulgaria (see Box 2.1) provide notable examples, both of which engaged the support of the OECD to provide advice on the development of those plans.

The decision between indirect and direct operational objectives involves trade-offs. Strategies that aim for direct influence on policy making and skills outcomes are more likely to achieve tangible policy reforms but demand substantial time and institutional capacity. This is because implementing such a strategy requires detailed agreements on responsibilities across ministries and agencies, identifying funding sources, and setting clear timelines for policy implementation (see Lesson 8). In contrast, strategies aimed at indirect influence require less time and fewer resources, as they involve fewer detailed operational agreements. Yet, they can still yield positive outcomes, albeit less often, resulting in concrete and measurable policy changes. In practice, countries can also have multiple operational objectives for their skills strategies, combining elements of both indirect and direct operational objectives. This can result from changing political contexts and evolving policy needs.

In summary, the choice between indirect and direct operational objectives in skills strategies varies across countries in the European Union. While indirect strategies focus on raising awareness and setting broad policy directions, direct strategies involve detailed implementation plans to achieve tangible policy outcomes. This decision not only shapes the content and focus of skills strategies but also determines the level of investment and institutional capacity required for effective implementation.

Policymakers should establish a clear objective for their skills strategies. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Setting the strategic objectives of the strategy: Strategic objectives define what skills challenges or gaps the strategy aims to address. They reflect a country's ambitions to tackle pressing skills challenges, such as minimising skills shortages, enhancing performance in certain areas of the skills system, or addressing the specific needs of demographic groups, such as youth and women. Defining a concise set of strategic objectives enhances efficiency by realistically shaping the strategy's scope. This approach not only optimises resource allocation but also fosters alignment among stakeholders and enhances accountability in achieving measurable outcomes. Clear strategic objectives serve as a guiding framework, enabling continuous adaptation and refinement of the skills strategy in response to evolving economic and societal needs.

• Setting the operational objectives of the strategy: Operational objectives delineate how the strategy will be implemented to achieve the strategic objectives. In practical terms, setting operational objectives involves choosing whether the strategy will primarily influence policy making and skills outcomes indirectly – such as by enhancing awareness of skills issues and fostering stakeholder commitment to policy reforms – or directly, such as by implementing comprehensive policy reforms or launching targeted initiatives to address skills gaps. This strategic decision not only shapes the content and focus of skills strategies (e.g. a high-level format or detailed format with an implementation plan) but also determines the level of investment and institutional capacity required for effective implementation.

Finding the right window of opportunity to develop a skills strategy can be crucial for its success. Changes in government and policy priorities can affect the implementation and longevity of a strategy. Therefore, initiating strategy development early in an electoral term or in anticipation of a new administration can be advantageous. This approach helps to ensure that the strategy informs government priorities and achieves successful implementation. Beyond electoral cycles, countries should also weigh other pertinent factors that can bolster momentum for reforming skills policies, such as significant events and initiatives that can raise awareness of the importance of skills or offer important opportunities for financing.

Careful planning of the timing for launching a skills strategy is crucial, as finding an opportune moment can enable governments to implement reforms more efficiently, leading to quicker and more effective improvements in skills outcomes. In a dynamic and unpredictable political landscape, the optimal window of opportunity arises when three conditions converge: 1) there is high public attention to the problem; 2) feasible policy solutions are available and can be identified; and 3) policymakers are motivated to implement the policy solution (Kingdon, 1995[12]; Cairney and Zahariadis, 2016[13]).

In recent years, there has been growing awareness among policymakers and the public about the pivotal role of skills in advancing national development and improving individuals’ well-being and socio-economic outcomes. The development of relevant skills, the effective utilisation of skills, and the establishment of mechanisms for governing skills policies have emerged as pressing issues, if not always priorities, on policymakers’ agendas. Countries can capitalise on this momentum by launching the strategy at opportune moments that offer increased visibility and allow ample time for its development and the implementation of all planned policy actions while minimising political opposition.

Finding the optimal moment to launch a skills strategy entails evaluating the potential implications of different launch dates on its impact. In practice, EU countries have considered several points in time as ideal opportunities to launch their skills strategies, such as at the start of an electoral mandate, the end of an electoral mandate as a new government is anticipated, and in concurrence with external skills-related events and opportunities for financing. Each of these opportunities offers distinct advantages for the skills strategy and may be considered by countries depending on their objectives and political and economic contexts.

Another important consideration is the timeframe necessary to develop a strategy, which hinges on the operational objectives that dictate the strategy's complexity and the resources needed for its execution. The development process can take anywhere from several months to a few years, depending on the level of specificity of the strategy, as well as external factors, such as the effectiveness of collaboration across government and with stakeholders and the availability of funding. Taken together, the timing of the launch and timeframe for strategy development is essential to ensure alignment with political cycles, effective leveraging of external opportunities and feasible implementation.

The timing of the launch of a skills strategy is crucial for its success. Analyses of EU countries’ experiences in developing skills strategies and consultations with experts involved in developing these strategies reveal several specific advantageous moments.

One pivotal moment occurs at the start of an electoral mandate. During this period, governments can establish and implement skills policies early in their term, reducing the risk of these policies being side-lined by changing priorities. This approach enables the clear initiation of a well-defined plan, ensuring that a set of policy activities can be effectively executed throughout their tenure.

A good example of this is Germany (see Box 2.2), where the skills strategy was renewed and launched at the start of a new electoral cycle (Government of Germany, 2022[14]). This period at the start of a new electoral or policy cycle presents a significant opportunity for a new government to enact reforms, benefiting from the extended time of political continuity and diminished risk of changes in priorities before the next potential change in leadership.

A second opportune moment for developing a skills strategy arises towards the end of an electoral mandate in anticipation of the next one. This timing allows the strategy to shape the incoming government's agenda, contingent on their decision to adopt and continue it. However, in cases where countries face political uncertainty and the formation of new governments is unclear, maintaining momentum for a skills strategy through a transitional period can be challenging. Nevertheless, the experiences of several EU countries illustrate that measures can be implemented to enhance the likelihood of carrying forward momentum into a new electoral mandate. For instance, policymakers can engage in consultations to garner stakeholder support and establish consensus on key skills challenges requiring policy attention.

A notable example is Northern Ireland (see Box 2.2), which formulated its skills strategy during a period of political uncertainty in preparation for the formation of a new government. During this period, an external organisation, the OECD, collaborated with various government departments to engage over 200 stakeholders and different political parties. Their input on Northern Ireland’s key skills challenges, opportunities and priorities helped lay the groundwork for the future strategy. This collaborative approach helped to ensure that the strategy, once launched after the formation of the new government, would be accepted by both government and external stakeholders.

Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and other ministries collaborated with SER, a non-political body, to initiate and develop the skills strategy ahead of the incoming government (OECD, 2017[10]). This proactive approach ensured consensus on identifying key skills challenges and possible responses and helped maintain momentum for action despite a political transition.

Another opportune moment for developing a skills strategy is when it can be synchronised with high-profile events or initiatives that enhance its visibility. This approach not only builds momentum for the skills strategy but also amplifies stakeholder support. For instance, in Ireland, the skills strategy was launched in 2023 to coincide with the European Year of Skills. This strategic alignment allowed the strategy to gain heightened visibility from the European-wide initiative (OECD, 2023[15]). Similarly, Malta's National Strategy for Lifelong Learning 2023-2030 leveraged the European Year of Skills to bolster its efforts in addressing national skills challenges (Government of Malta, 2023[16]). Malta also benefited from the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument (TSI) Flagship on Skills to receive technical support for the development of a complementary National Skills Strategy and targeted measures for the maritime sector.

Aligning the strategy’s development with opportunities for funding can improve the feasibility of both the strategy’s development and implementation. For instance, as previously covered in Lesson 1, Hungary (see Box 2.1) strategically timed the development of its skills strategy to align with the funding opportunities provided by the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds (Government of Hungary, 2014[11]). By aligning the strategy with this funding cycle, Hungary was able to secure essential financing for its skills policy reforms.

However, while there are opportune moments for launching a skills strategy, sometimes necessity dictates strategy development even during less-than-ideal times. Stakeholders emphasise the crucial importance of maintaining flexibility and adaptability to allow for strategy development in response to emerging socio-economic and environmental challenges (e.g. skills shortages, digital and green transitions) and shifting political priorities. The significance of flexibility and adaptability is evident in Poland's case, where the skills strategy was developed during an electoral term (Ministry of Education of Poland, 2020[17]). With limited time available to finalise the strategy before the end of the electoral term, Poland encountered challenges in developing a comprehensive strategy that could thoroughly assess the skills system and outline detailed policy actions. As a compromise, they completed the initial phase of their skills strategy shortly before the elections, aiming to establish a foundational framework of priorities for the incoming government. Following the elections and the formation of a new government, Poland continued to refine their strategy by conducting further analysis and devising recommendations on additional skills-related topics, such as optimising skills utilisation.

Determining the optimal time to launch a skills strategy is critical for its success. Timing influences the strategy's ability to establish priorities early in an electoral mandate, reducing the risk of being side-lined by shifting political agendas. This proactive approach ensures continuity and enhances the strategy's effectiveness in addressing pressing skills challenges. Moreover, aligning the strategy with high-profile events or funding opportunities amplifies its visibility, stakeholder support and feasibility. Flexibility remains paramount in navigating less-than-ideal circumstances, enabling countries to adapt and refine strategies amidst political or socio-economic uncertainties. Ultimately, strategic timing ensures that skills strategies are not only well-prepared but also well-positioned to achieve lasting and impactful outcomes in enhancing national skills systems.

When determining the optimal time to launch a skills strategy, it is also important to consider the timeframe required for its development. The timeframe largely hinges on the strategy's operational objectives and intended scope (see Lesson 1). For example, if a country aims to implement comprehensive or significant policy reforms, the skills strategy should include or be complemented by a detailed implementation plan. This plan should assign responsibilities to ministries and agencies, identify funding sources, and establish timelines for policy execution. Achieving this level of specificity demands ample time to foster agreement and alignment across ministries and levels of government. It also requires soliciting input from external stakeholders, consulting with government officials, drafting the strategy, securing funding, and obtaining approval as an official legislative document, among other tasks. By anticipating these activities and allocating sufficient time to each, countries can ensure their skills strategy is comprehensively developed and ready for a timely launch.

The timeframe for developing a skills strategy varies significantly across EU countries, ranging from less than one year to several years (see Figure 2.4). Most skills strategies (64%) took between one and two years to develop, from the initial meeting of a dedicated working group to the publication of the skills strategy. Only a few skills strategies (16%), including ones in Cyprus, Germany and Greece, were developed in less than a year. Skills strategies in several countries (12%), such as Latvia, Malta and Northern Ireland, took two to three years to develop their skills strategies, while a smaller number (8%) required even more time, exceeding three years, as observed in Norway and Poland.

In many cases, the complexity of the strategy development process necessitated multiple phases, influenced by political contexts and the availability of funding, which collectively extended the duration of completion. Typically, the initial phase involved collaborating with external organisations, such as the OECD, alongside local stakeholders to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the skills system's performance and identify key policy priorities. In the subsequent phase, these countries translated these findings into a national strategic document outlining specific actions to be taken and, in many cases, an implementation plan. This phase sometimes involved seeking further input from external stakeholders or government officials. Both Bulgaria and Latvia (see Box 2.2) adopted this two-phase approach, with Latvia investing between two and three years to finalise its skills strategy, which was launched at the beginning of a new policy cycle (Latvian Cabinet of Ministers, 2021[18]).

Stakeholders consulted during this project have emphasised the importance of anticipating the duration of the strategy development process. This is because developing a skills strategy entails numerous activities, such as co-ordinating across various ministries and governmental levels to establish a shared skills agenda, engaging stakeholders to gather their insights, consulting with skills experts, participating in peer-learning exchanges with other countries, and securing funding for the outlined policy activities.

Many countries across the European Union have developed skills strategies and implementation plans with financial support from external funding sources, including various EU instruments, such as the European Social Fund, Erasmus+ and the TSI. The availability of this funding has been a crucial factor in enabling the successful development of skills strategies. However, consulted stakeholders also noted the importance of accounting for the time required to apply for such funding. Therefore, meticulous planning is essential.

In some instances, involving an external entity in the skills strategy development can yield added benefits, such as accessing technical expertise (e.g. through the European Commission’s TSI) and opportunities for peer learning. However, this approach can require more time for the development of the skills strategy, as well as additional investments in terms of human resources and/or financial resources, especially when adopting a two-phase process, as illustrated by Latvia (see Box 2.2). In this case, external assessments informed the creation of a national strategic document, enhancing the strategy's robustness and adoption.

In summary, determining the timeframe for developing a skills strategy is pivotal to its successful implementation and impact. The duration of strategy development varies based on the complexity of policy reforms, political contexts and the availability of funding. Countries aiming for comprehensive skills strategies must allocate sufficient time to engage stakeholders, conduct thorough assessments, and outline detailed implementation plans. Strategic planning and co-ordination across governmental levels are essential to ensure alignment and secure necessary resources. Furthermore, leveraging external expertise and funding can enhance the strategy's effectiveness, albeit requiring careful management of additional time and resources. Ultimately, a well-timed and meticulously planned skills strategy not only addresses immediate challenges but also lays a robust foundation for long-term skills development and national prosperity.

• Policymakers should find the right window of opportunity to develop a skills strategy. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Determining the optimal time to launch a skills strategy: The timing of the launch is crucial for the success of a skills strategy. Aligning the strategy with an electoral mandate or an anticipated change in mandates can help increase the likelihood of it being developed and adopted while reducing the risk of it being side-lined by shifting political agendas. This proactive approach helps ensure completion and continuity and enhances the strategy’s effectiveness in addressing pressing skills challenges. Moreover, launching the strategy in conjunction with high-profile events or funding opportunities amplifies its visibility, stakeholder support and feasibility, thereby bolstering its impact. Given that strategies sometimes need to be developed in less-than-ideal circumstances, such as in response to socio-economic and environmental challenges or amidst political uncertainty, remaining flexible is paramount. Ultimately, strategic timing helps ensure that skills strategies are not only well-prepared but also well-positioned to achieve lasting and impactful outcomes in enhancing skills systems. By carefully considering the optimal timing for launch, countries can maximise the effectiveness and sustainability of their skills policy reforms.

• Determining the timeframe required to develop a strategy: Determining the optimal timeframe is pivotal to the successful implementation and impact of the strategy. The duration of strategy development varies based on the complexity of policy reforms, political contexts and the availability of funding. Countries aiming for comprehensive skills strategies must allocate sufficient time to engage stakeholders, conduct thorough assessments, and outline detailed implementation plans. Strategic planning and co-ordination across governmental levels are essential to ensure alignment and secure necessary resources. Furthermore, leveraging external expertise and funding can enhance the strategy's effectiveness, albeit requiring careful management of additional time and resources. Ultimately, a well-timed and meticulously planned skills strategy not only addresses immediate challenges but also lays a robust foundation for long-term skills development and national prosperity.

Skills strategies are often developed upon the foundation of previous skills strategies or similar skills-related strategies, such as education or adult learning strategies. Therefore, it is important for new skills strategies to build on the achievements of previous efforts and address persistent challenges that earlier initiatives may have left unaddressed. Additionally, in EU countries, skills strategies often coexist with other national and EU strategies and initiatives that impact the development and utilisation of skills. These include strategies for employment, industrial development, digitalisation, innovation and economic growth. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that the skills strategy complements these other strategies. This involves establishing clear linkages between various strategies and ensuring their policy proposals do not conflict or overlap.

Over the last decade, many countries have developed skills strategies, with many now undergoing renewal. Some strategies have expanded the scope of previous, more narrowly focused strategies that concentrated on specific stages of learning, such as education or adult learning. These newer skills strategies often aim to encompass learning across the entire life course through formal, non-formal and informal learning, and some seek to promote the full and effective use of skills in workplaces and society. Whether based on prior skills strategies or education strategies, updated strategies build upon the important lessons learnt from previous strategies.

Skills strategies often coexist with other government strategies that impact skills development and utilisation, such as employment and immigration strategies, or that require skills development to advance their objectives, such as job creation, industrial and economic growth strategies, as well as initiatives and strategies of the European Union. In such cases, care must be taken to ensure that policy measures across these strategies are aligned and mutually reinforcing. Aligning these strategies can minimise overlap and ensure efficient resource allocation.

While striving for policy coherence is essential, balancing the transaction costs associated with achieving it against the benefits it offers is equally important. Careful alignment can reduce redundancies and promote efficiency, yet pursuing absolute coherence might hinder decision making or stall implementation. In complex contexts, aiming for “good enough” coherence may be essential to ensure that actionable steps are taken (OECD, 2018[21]; 2021[22]).

As described above, skills strategies are frequently developed within the framework of other related strategies or other national and international strategies that have implications for developing and utilising skills. Analysis of skills strategies undertaken in the European Union over the past decade confirms this finding (see Figure 2.5). Almost all skills strategies were developed within the framework of other related strategies. For instance, a strategy may build upon a previous skills strategy or similar initiative; it may coexist with other national strategies with skills implications, such as a long-term national vision; or it may be inspired or modelled after EU strategies.

Skills strategies should build on the achievements of previous strategies concerning the development and use of skills and address challenges that earlier initiatives may have overlooked or left unaddressed. By drawing on insights and lessons learnt from past strategies, countries can maintain continuity and momentum in pursuing national goals amidst evolving economic, social and environmental conditions.

In some countries, skills strategies are synonymous with education or lifelong learning strategies or replace these strategies to broaden their focus, as noted earlier. In other cases, skills strategies coexist with and complement education strategies. In these cases, education strategies primarily focus on initial education, while skills strategies encompass higher and vocational education, adult learning, and the practical application of skills in the economy and society. In contexts where these strategies coexist, aligning them is crucial for enhancing coherence and effectiveness in achieving national skills development goals.

In the European Union, approximately 36% of skills strategies are preceded by an earlier skills strategy or a lifelong learning strategy (see Figure 2.5). For example, Germany’s latest skills strategy builds on the implementation plan of its predecessor (Government of Germany, 2022[14]) (see also Box 2.2 in Lesson 2). Stakeholders have emphasised that the new strategy includes several objectives aimed at reinforcing the results of the previous strategy. These objectives encompass strengthening connections with other related strategies (e.g. digital strategy, literacy strategy), enhancing communication, expanding stakeholder engagement, and underscoring the importance of continuous training and education to a broader audience.

Monitoring and evaluation systems (see Lesson 9) play a crucial role in ensuring that newer skills strategies build on the successes of predecessors while addressing their shortcomings. Access to accurate and timely skills information is essential for identifying where previous strategies fell short and where current and future strategies can be improved. As countries renew their strategies over time and adapt their objectives to evolving circumstances, they must also improve their monitoring frameworks to rectify the deficiencies of past strategies. Latvia provides an illustrative example of such an approach. During the development of the new EDG 2021-2027, Latvian policymakers identified missing indicators and flagged data quality issues in the previous EDG 2014-2020 to better address them in the updated strategy (Latvian Cabinet of Ministers, 2021[18]).

However, in practice, many countries do not systematically carry out ex post evaluations to assess the impact, as well as effectiveness and efficiency, of skills strategies. This is presumably the result of the complexity and costs of conducting these evaluations, since skills strategies capture many initiatives, and the impact on skills policy can be both direct (e.g. by directly resulting in skills reforms) and indirect (e.g. by creating a shared language around skills). These findings are supported by the Sustainable Governance Indicators from the Bertelsmann Stiftung, which show that most EU countries do not carry out ex post evaluations for significant policies nor use evaluation results for the revision of existing policies or the development of new policies (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022[23]). While several countries conduct interim evaluations for skills strategies (e.g. annual updates), these evaluations typically focus on specific actions and do not assess the broader impact of skills strategies.

However, many countries report that effectively building on previous strategies is a significant challenge, as this is ultimately contingent on their ability to renew their strategies across electoral cycles (see Lesson 2). In some cases, the skills strategy of an outgoing administration may be completely replaced by an incoming administration with different priorities, potentially resulting in policy discontinuity and inefficient resource allocation. Stakeholders have shared valuable lessons on mitigating these risks and aligning with past strategies. For example, establishing dedicated oversight and co-ordination mechanisms (see Lesson 6) and involving the same key ministries, stakeholders and champion(s) (see Lesson 5) who were instrumental in previous iterations of the strategy can help ensure ongoing continuity.

Drawing on insights from past strategies is essential for ensuring continuity and continuous improvement amidst evolving economic, social and environmental pressures. Robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks play a crucial role in adapting strategies over time, ensuring coherence and maximising the impact of future initiatives. This integrated approach helps achieve national goals for effectively developing and utilising skills.

Skills strategies must align with simultaneous strategies in other policy areas to ensure their collective contribution to national development and other overarching goals. This alignment should not only minimise duplication but also foster synergies that enhance efficiency and optimise the use of limited public resources.

As illustrated in Figure 2.5, approximately 84% of skills strategies across the European Union are linked to other national strategic documents, such as long-term socio-economic development plans. For example, the skills strategy developed by Croatia, the National Plan for the Development of Education and Training until 2027, represents a continuation of a multi-year commitment to a comprehensive education strategy and supports higher-level strategic goals under the National Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia until 2030 (see Box 2.3) (Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia, 2023[24]).

Countries typically integrate their skills strategies with broader national agendas during the development process. This involves systematically reviewing other government documents to identify and incorporate existing skills-related policies. For instance, in Bulgaria, where numerous strategic documents are being developed, a team of experts conducted a comprehensive review of at least six other government strategies. They identified and incorporated all skills-related objectives and priority policy actions into the Action Plan for Skills. This approach helped to reduce policy fragmentation in Bulgaria. Moreover, the comprehensive review process ensured that the skills strategy promoted alignment and complementarity across various related strategies, covering policy areas such as education, employment, innovation and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (OECD, 2024[25]).

When aligning skills strategies with those from other sectors, stakeholders consulted during the project stressed the importance of engaging with other ministries, agencies and stakeholders to agree on the strategy's scope, key messages and priorities (see also Lesson 6). They also highlighted the need to establish governance mechanisms that foster strong co-ordination across different sectoral strategies during implementation. For instance, in Ireland, efforts were taken to align its skills strategy with other strategies that cover different but related topics, including the Digital Ireland Framework (Department of the Taoiseach, 2022[26]) and Future Jobs Ireland 2019 (Government of Ireland, 2019[27]). Specifically, skills-relevant policy objectives and measures in those strategies were considered in formulating policy recommendations in the skills strategy to ensure alignment and avoid duplication.

The example of Greece (see Box 2.3) is particularly notable in that they have two strategies that can be considered skills strategies, each addressing different aspects of skills policy. One strategy focuses on formal education under the oversight of the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs, and Sports (Government of Greece, 2022[28]), while the other deals with non-formal education and training for the labour force, overseen by the public employment service, DYPA, as part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance (Greek Public Employment Service, 2023[29]). Stakeholders in Greece explained that due to distinct budgetary and legal requirements, developing two separate strategies was more feasible and efficient than combining them. This approach allows implementing ministries to concentrate on their respective areas of expertise. However, to ensure coherence between these strategies, both are closely co-ordinated by two governance bodies overseeing the strategies. However, it is important to note that Greece's situation is unique and that most other EU countries have a single skills strategy that integrates all aspects of their skills systems.

In addition to helping to ensure the alignment of strategies, consulting and co-ordinating with government actors overseeing other governmental strategies can facilitate information sharing. This collaboration assists policymakers in developing a well-informed skills strategy. During the development of Ireland’s skills strategy, the Department for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS), which is responsible for the skills strategy, collaborated with other government actors (e.g. through national and regional workshops), bringing them together to not only agree on the scope and objectives of the skills strategy but also to share lessons learnt from developing and implementing other strategies (OECD, 2023[15]).

Aligning skills strategies with concurrent strategies in other policy sectors is essential for enhancing efficiency and maximising the impact of national development efforts. This integrated approach not only reduces duplication of efforts but also promotes synergies across diverse policy areas, such as education, employment, innovation and small business support. Stakeholders emphasise the importance of robust governance mechanisms and stakeholder engagement to ensure coherence and co-ordination across these interconnected strategies. This ensures that limited public resources are optimally utilised to achieve overarching national goals.

Some EU countries ensure their skills strategies align with European-level skills-related initiatives and strategies (see Box 2.3). An analysis of skills strategies in the European Union shows that 20% of these strategies are explicitly inspired by, or modelled on, a European-level strategy or document (see Figure 2.5). Key European-level strategies that are frequently referenced include the European Skills Agenda (European Commission, 2020[30]), the Digital Agenda for Europe, the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, the European Green Deal Industrial Plan, European Council recommendations, and country-level partnership agreements, among others. For example, Poland’s Integrated Skills Strategy 2030 (Poland's Council of Ministers, 2020[31]) was inspired by the New Skills Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2016[32]) and incorporates several European Council recommendations, such as the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning.

One way in which countries have aligned their skills strategies with European-level strategies is by applying for support from the European Commission’s TSI, which is an EU programme that provides tailored technical expertise to EU Member States to help them design and implement reforms. The TSI supports countries in designing their reforms that are aligned with EU orientations through a unique combination of expertise from the European Commission, EU Member States, international organisations, and the private sector. The TSI identifies skills, education and training as one of its reform areas, and it has been used by a number of EU countries to develop their skills strategies. For example, in Bulgaria (see Box 2.1 in Lesson 1), the skills strategy’s implementation plan was developed through a TSI project with expertise from the OECD. During the strategy development process, experts conducted a mapping exercise of a number of European strategies in order to inform the policy actions to be implemented (OECD, 2024[25]).

Aligning skills strategies with EU-level commitments allows countries to benchmark themselves against other EU countries, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and actively engage in peer-learning opportunities (OECD, 2020[33]). This alignment often requires countries to standardise their definitions of different skills terminologies to generate internationally comparable data and report regularly to EU-level institutions (e.g. Eurostat) regarding progress on key skills indicators. To this end, countries must have strong monitoring and evaluation systems capable of gathering high-quality data on internationally comparable indicators (see Lesson 9). This will require human and financial resources for reporting and, to some extent, additional administrative burden to collect high-quality skills data.

Policymakers should align the skills strategy with other key government strategies. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Building on previous strategies: Skills strategies should build on the achievements of preceding strategies, including similar skills-related strategies, such as education or adult learning strategies, and address challenges that previous initiatives overlooked or left unaddressed. By drawing on insights and lessons learnt from these strategies and their preceding versions, countries can maintain continuity and momentum in pursuit of national goals amidst evolving economic, social and environmental conditions. Countries can enhance the effectiveness of their strategies by implementing robust monitoring and evaluation systems to track long-term progress. Furthermore, establishing dedicated oversight and co-ordination mechanisms can ensure the renewal process supports policy continuity across time and electoral cycles.

• Aligning with strategies in other policy areas: Skills strategies need to be aligned with concurrent strategies in other policy areas to ensure their collective contribution to national development and other overarching goals. This alignment not only minimises duplication but also fosters synergies that increase efficiency and optimise the use of limited public resources. In practice, many EU countries already achieve cross-sectoral alignment by systematically reviewing strategies from other related sectors to identify and integrate relevant skills-related policies and measures. Additionally, they establish robust co-ordination mechanisms across the whole of government to facilitate coherent implementation.

• Aligning with EU initiatives: Alignment with EU-level initiatives and strategies ensures that countries adhere to supranational priorities and fulfil their EU commitments through their skills strategies. Aligning skills strategies with EU-level commitments also allows countries to benchmark themselves against other EU countries, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and actively engage in peer-learning opportunities. This alignment often requires countries to standardise their definitions of different skills terminologies to generate internationally comparable data and report regularly to EU-level institutions (e.g. Eurostat) regarding progress on key skills indicators.

An evidence-based assessment of a skills system is crucial for selecting priority areas for action. In a world with limited resources, countries cannot address all skills challenges simultaneously. An evidence-based assessment helps pinpoint the key issues a strategy should prioritise. It should encompass an analysis of all skills topics aligned with the strategy's strategic objectives (see Lesson 1), in addition to broader contextual factors such as economic, social and environmental conditions. By basing the selection of priorities on strong evidence, governments can develop skills strategies that empower individuals and countries to overcome today’s challenges and seize future opportunities.

A key function of skills strategies is to establish priorities and outline the relevant policy actions. The broad scope of these strategies is often shaped by the strategic objectives of the skills strategy (Lesson 1) and the need for alignment with other government strategies (see Lesson 3). However, an evidence-based assessment of the skills system is crucial to narrow the list of potential areas for action to a manageable list of priorities. By ensuring that the topics in the strategy are well-informed by evidence, countries can allocate limited resources more effectively towards the most pressing skills challenges, thereby optimising the impact.

An evidence-based approach also fosters broad support by presenting an impartial view of the skills system’s performance. This is important since the prioritisation of challenges can be complex due to conflicting interests among government ministries, agencies and stakeholders, which also underscores the need for interministerial collaboration (as described in Lesson 6) and stakeholder engagement (as described in Lesson 7). Ensuring skills priorities are grounded in evidence makes it easier to achieve consensus on the priorities and policy actions to be outlined in the skills strategy.

The 2019 OECD Skills Strategy Framework (OECD, 2019[2]) serves as a valuable tool for assessing the performance of skills systems and identifying a relevant scope for a skills strategy (see Box 2.4). Its three dimensions – developing relevant skills over the life course, using skills effectively in work and society, and strengthening the governance of skills systems – provide a comprehensive structure for guiding an assessment. Additionally, the framework outlines specific policy measures associated with each dimension. By assessing skills systems through these dimensions, countries can narrow the scope of their strategy to a manageable number of priorities.

Countries use a wide range of approaches to assess the performance of their skills systems and establish the scope for their strategies. While evidence-based assessments of skills systems are included in most skills strategies, there is significant variation in countries’ approaches to these assessments, including who conducts the assessments, what topics are covered and which methodologies (e.g. quantitative vs. qualitative) are applied. These assessments are crucial for establishing the scope of skills strategies and have driven the inclusion of different skills priorities in these strategies. Overall, by grounding strategy development in robust evidence, stakeholders can ensure that the strategies are comprehensive and tailored to address the most pressing challenges within the skills systems.

An evidence-based assessment of the skills system's performance is fundamental to effective skills strategies, and the majority of EU countries base their strategies on thorough evaluations of their skills system's performance. This assessment is typically embedded in the core of the skills strategy document and precedes the formulation of recommendations. For instance, OECD Skills Strategy projects undertaken in EU Member States begin with comprehensive assessments of the skills system across identified priority areas.

While assessments can be made by a leading ministry or project team comprised of key ministries and agencies, in practice, they are often conducted by external organisations. This approach provides an impartial and neutral perspective on skills priorities, helping to foster buy-in among stakeholders. In many countries, research is conducted by independent research organisations or specialised governmental agencies. For example, in Germany, the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training was commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research to provide technical and organisational support for the National Skills Strategy (Government of Germany, 2019[19]). In other countries, international organisations play a crucial role, offering an international perspective on the skills challenges the country faces. The OECD has undertaken 14 skills strategies in the European Union through its Assessment and Recommendations reports (see Box 2.4) (OECD, 2019[2]). Similarly, the World Bank supported Croatia in developing the 2030 National Development Strategy (Government of Croatia, 2018[34]), which is the overarching strategy related to Croatia’s National Plan for the Development of Education and Training until 2027 (Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia, 2023[24]) (see also Box 2.3 in Lesson 3).

The assessment should ideally be comprehensive, covering a wide range of topics related to the skills system. This could encompass skills levels among youth and adults, existing imbalances, the application of skills in the labour market and workplaces, and governance structures for the skills system, among other aspects of skills performance. Additionally, the assessment should address current skills challenges and anticipate future ones, identifying skills critical for future economic and societal success. This requires careful consideration of broader contextual factors like the digital transformation and AI, the green transition, demographic trends, globalisation and other influences on skills supply and demand.

A thorough evaluation of the skills system necessitates a blend of qualitative and quantitative methodologies for gathering evidence. Quantitative methods, such as surveys and statistical analysis, offer measurable and comparable data points, while qualitative approaches, like interviews and focus groups involving government representatives and stakeholders (as described in Lessons 6 and 7), provide deeper insights into their experiences and perspectives. A good practice is to employ a mix of both methods to obtain the benefits of each.

Ensuring high-quality, accessible, and timely data is essential for evaluating the performance of skills systems. Reliable data forms the basis for accurate analysis and robust evidence. Standardising data collection processes across different institutions and sectors, along with investing in robust data management systems, are critical steps to enhance data quality and availability. For example, countries can explore developing online tools to facilitate the effective sharing of critical skills system data (see Box 2.5 for an example from Greece). Integrating new technologies like AI, machine learning, and big data analytics can significantly elevate the quality of skills system assessments. These technologies enable deeper insights and more precise skills forecasting by efficiently processing large datasets and facilitating real-time data collection and sharing, for instance, by assessing skills information in online job vacancies.

The individuals and institutions involved in assessing the performance of skills systems must possess the necessary skills and capabilities to conduct evidence-based assessments. Capacity-building initiatives may be required to ensure personnel have the knowledge and experience to utilise advanced data analysis techniques effectively. This could involve familiarising them with the latest technological tools and enhancing their proficiency in effective methodologies. Additionally, reinforcing institutional frameworks to support continuous learning and improvement is essential for sustaining the skills needed for rigorous evidence collection and analysis over the long term.

An evidence-based assessment of skills systems forms the bedrock of effective strategies, ensuring informed decision making and stakeholder buy-in. By employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, countries can comprehensively evaluate skills levels, labour market dynamics and governance structures, anticipating future challenges and aligning strategies accordingly. Moreover, investing in high-quality data collection and analysis capabilities, alongside capacity-building initiatives, enhances the accuracy and relevance of assessments, supporting continuous improvement in skills development policies and practices.

An evidence-based assessment of the performance of skills systems has been crucial in determining the scope of skills strategies in EU countries. As described above, the evidence-based assessment is particularly important for pinpointing specific topics for action within the broader framework of skills policy priorities.

While the scope of skills strategies is generally similar across the European Union, notable variations exist. Most strategies focus on developing skills, their effective use in workplaces and the governance of skills systems. However, significant differences exist in the choice of specific skills priorities within these broad categories.

This diversity becomes evident when examining the coverage of skills policy topics in EU strategies over the past decade (see Panel A in Figure 2.7). Adult learning is consistently addressed in all strategies, but the inclusion of different types and levels of initial education varies widely. VET and higher education are featured in 81% of strategies, while early childhood education and care are included in only 31%, and school-based learning in 54%. Skills development for seniors is addressed in just 19% of strategies.

Decisions on which phases of skills development to include in skills strategies are typically informed by an evidence-based assessment of the performance of their skills systems. For instance, in Ireland and Flanders (Belgium), initial education was not prioritised due to the comparatively strong skills performance of youth, as evidenced by the results of recent Programme on International Student Assessment (PISA) surveys and the existence of other, more pressing skills challenges (see Box 2.5). Conversely, in Lithuania and Bulgaria, the comparatively weak skills of both youth and adults, along with significant disparities in the performance of different population groups, resulted in the inclusion of all stages of learning (see Box 2.5).

Skills strategies also encompass a diverse range of policy actions aimed at improving access and quality to skills development opportunities, as illustrated in Panel B of Figure 2.7. Nearly all skills strategies consider policies that help to ensure that learners develop labour-market-relevant skills. Other commonly considered policy actions include curriculum design (85%), career guidance (83%), modalities of learning provision (73%) – such as virtual, hybrid or face-to-face formats – teaching quality (73%), and the recognition of prior learning (RPL) (73%). Although addressed less frequently, quality assurance mechanisms are still included in 57% of skills strategies.

In terms of the types of skills considered in skills strategies, almost all strategies in EU countries are concerned with the development of cognitive or meta-cognitive skills (e.g. literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, learning to learn), technical-professional skills related to specific job competencies (e.g. skills requires to be a mechanic, nurse, engineer, computer programmer, etc.), as well as digital skills (e.g. digital literacy, proficiency with digital tools). Fewer skills strategies are concerned with the development of social and emotional skills (50% of skills strategies) that can influence how effectively other skills are developed and employed in practice. These include attitudes and behaviours such as perseverance, self-regulation, empathy and self-esteem. The importance of these skills for navigating a challenging and uncertain world is significant and warrants giving them greater attention (OECD, 2023[15]).

All skills strategies in the European Union are concerned with the development of skills in both formal and non-formal learning settings. Formal learning refers to programmes and courses that lead to formal qualifications and typically takes place in educational institutions, such as schools, VET institutions and universities. Non-formal learning includes activities that do not lead to formal qualifications, such as short-term courses, seminars and workshops, generally undertaken to improve job performance or pursue personal interests. Informal learning, including learning by doing or observing others, is less frequently considered (45% of strategies), likely due to its informal and unstructured nature. This poses challenges with respect to its measurement and benefits, as well as uncertainty about which policy levers can effectively promote this type of learning. However, ideally, informal learning would be assessed in skills strategies since there is evidence of its prevalence and relevance. For example, within enterprises, informal learning accounts for more than 70% of total learning time (OECD, 2021[36]).

While most skills strategies are concerned with policies to promote the effective utilisation of skills, what policies are considered to promote the effective use of skills differs across countries (see Panel C of Figure 2.7). For instance, 72% of strategies focus on the use of skills to enhance innovation and entrepreneurship. Additionally, 60% of strategies consider the role of active labour market policies (ALMPs) in activating the skills of those outside the labour market. Other policy actions for strengthening the utilisation of skills that are frequently considered in skills strategies include the development of management and leadership skills (48%) and incentives and support for the adoption of high-performance workplace practices (HPWP) (56%), which encompass organisational practices (e.g. teamwork, flexibility) and management practices (e.g. employee participation, incentive pay) that enhance skills utilisation. Migration policies, such as talent attraction, are also important elements of many strategies, but to a lesser extent than the others mentioned.

Arrangements for governing skills systems are a common feature of skills strategies found in EU countries, reflecting the challenges of co-ordinating and aligning the skills policies and practices of the many government ministries, agencies and stakeholders involved. However, there is variation in the governance aspects covered by skills strategies (see Panel D of Figure 2.7). Nearly all strategies (92%) emphasise the importance of skills information systems for research, guidance and policy making. Around 88% of skills strategies also address the topic of improving the co-ordination, co-operation and collaboration across the whole of government and facilitating the engagement of stakeholders. The issue of aligning and co‑ordinating funding arrangements is also often covered (in 69% of strategies).

Based on these insights, discussions with individuals involved in the development of skills strategies, and the OECD’s extensive experience in supporting numerous countries to develop skills strategies, the OECD has identified several policy actions that should typically be covered by skills strategies and included in the evidence-based assessment (OECD, 2019[2]; 2023[1]). To ensure that learning is aligned with labour market needs, strategies should assess the performance of mechanisms to make the provision of VET and higher education more responsive to changes in the labour markets, including financial incentives for learning providers and skills assessment and anticipation. To support lifelong learning and help adults adapt to changing skills needs, skills strategies should assess the effectiveness of policies for lifelong career guidance as well as learning incentives for both individuals and employers. These incentives can be financial, such as vouchers, tax incentives, and individual learning accounts (ILAs), or non-financial, such as training leaves and flexible learning options like micro-credentials, among others. Furthermore, to ensure accessibility and quality of the learning provision, strategies should assess quality assurance mechanisms and practices. To strengthen the utilisation of skills, policies to encourage and support the adoption of HPWP and improve the skills and practices of managers are important to assess. Finally, the effectiveness of governance arrangements, such as mechanisms to support whole-of-government collaboration and engagement with stakeholders on skills policy, is also important to assess.

Additional topics that could be included in skills strategies but whose inclusion would depend to a greater extent on the strategic objectives chosen for the strategy (see Lesson 1), as well as the country-specific context, include policies to attract and retain talent from abroad, recognise prior learning and collect and govern skills data. In contexts where the quality of initial education is a significant concern, strategies should also consider policies related to curriculum design and teaching, hiring, training and development.

An evidence-based assessment plays a pivotal role in shaping the scope of skills strategies across EU countries, influencing which aspects of skills development and utilisation are prioritised. This assessment informs decisions on whether to include policies related to initial education, VET, adult learning and skills utilisation, and aspects of the governance of skills systems, among others. It ensures that strategies are tailored to address critical skills gaps and opportunities, guiding the focus towards areas where interventions can have the most significant impact on enhancing skills development and utilisation and governance effectiveness.

Policymakers should build the strategy on strong evidence of the skills system. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Making an evidence-based assessment of the performance of skills systems: Most EU countries build their skills strategies on thorough assessments of the performance of their skills systems. Ideally, these assessments are comprehensive, capturing a broad range of topics related to the skills system, using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. They should utilise accessible and timely data, leveraging advanced technologies such as AI, machine learning and big data analytics for deeper insights and more precise skills forecasts. Often, an external organisation supports the country with the assessment, providing an impartial and neutral perspective on skills priorities and, in this way, fostering buy-in among stakeholders.

• Using evidence to establish the scope of the strategy: Evidence-based assessments of the performance of skills systems play a pivotal role in shaping the scope of skills strategies, influencing which aspects of skills development and utilisation are prioritised. This assessment informs decisions on whether to include policies related to initial education, VET, adult learning and skills utilisation, and aspects of the governance of skills systems, among others. It ensures that strategies are tailored to address critical skills gaps and opportunities, guiding the focus towards areas where interventions can have the most significant impact on enhancing skills development and utilisation and governance effectiveness.

Finding a high-level champion or champions for the skills strategy is important for the success of both its development and implementation. Champions help to secure a mandate, promote broad support for the strategy’s development, raise its profile, and encourage the engagement of senior officials and relevant stakeholders. In addition, high-level champions can ensure long-term support for the strategy and its implementation. To maintain momentum and build broad support for action, it is particularly helpful to involve ministers with skills-relevant portfolios and/or their deputies as champions. It is also advantageous to involve champions from outside the government, including key stakeholders in the skills strategy, who can help build and maintain public support for the development and implementation of the strategy.

Developing skills strategies is challenging as responsibilities and decision-making powers for skills policy are dispersed across multiple ministerial portfolios, such as education, employment, immigration, research and innovation, and economy, as well as different levels of government (OECD, 2020[39]) (see also Lesson 6). Additionally, developing skills strategies requires engaging numerous stakeholders, including employers, labour and civil society organisations, while ensuring a coherent and clear approach to priorities and recommended actions (see also Lesson 7). Implementing a skills strategy is also challenging because the long-term benefits may conflict with the more immediate benefits of other policies.

To ensure broad commitment to skills strategies, countries should designate champions who can build support and maintain momentum by facilitating consensus and mobilising action among government officials and stakeholders. Champions help to align the interests of diverse ministerial portfolios and stakeholders toward joint and co-ordinated action. By raising awareness of the collective benefits, champions foster a commitment to a coherent and shared skills strategy. Additionally, these champions may play a role in initiating, supporting and securing the necessary legislative approvals and funding for the strategy's development.

Champions are also vital for sustaining commitment to implementing the skills strategy, given the complexity and the long-term nature of skills policy. Skills policy measures often require significant time to implement and demonstrate results, posing the risk of losing momentum and support. A champion with influence can effectively communicate the strategic advantages of long-term planning, ensuring ongoing support and momentum for the strategy's implementation. By guiding the strategy through consensus building and long-term advocacy, champions play a pivotal role in shaping effective skills policies that meet evolving societal and economic needs.

Countries should aim to identify champions who can facilitate consensus among government officials and stakeholders without imposing hierarchical control over ministries, agencies and non-state actors. Ideally, the champions would guide the process by respecting the autonomy of all involved while ensuring the strategy maintains momentum and stays on track.

Champions can emerge at various stages and play diverse roles in the development and implementation of a skills strategy. In some instances, a champion can take the lead from the outset, initiating strategy development. In other cases, they may emerge later in the process as stakeholders are engaged. Countries may seek different champions for various stages of the strategy, such as one for development and another for implementation. However, this approach necessitates meticulous co-ordination to ensure consistent and effective leadership. Champions can be selected from within the government, such as senior officials with the authority to convene and influence stakeholders. Alternatively, champions may come from outside the government, such as respected employers or public figures dedicated to skills development and possessing access to decision makers.

Skills strategies can be significantly strengthened when championed by ministries and agencies responsible for leading their development and implementation. In EU countries, strategies are often championed by ministers with skills-relevant portfolios and/or their deputies.

In nearly half of the countries with skills strategies, the responsibility for leading the strategy falls to the Ministry of Education (see Figure 2.8). This reflects its traditional role in skills development and its capacity to act as a champion for these strategies (OECD, 2020[39]). For instance, in the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport led the skills strategy (OECD, 2020[5]), and the minister actively secured cabinet approval and funding and engaged with stakeholders to ensure governmental commitment and a successful strategy launch. Furthermore, in Ireland, the DFHERIS took the lead in developing the skills strategy in 2023, with the minister playing a pivotal role in updating and promoting the strategy (see Box 2.6). This dedicated leadership fosters commitment on the part of other skills policy actors and facilitates a smooth process to identify policy priorities.

Other ministries or government agencies have also played a leading role in developing and implementing skills strategies. Ministries responsible for employment and/or the economy frequently lead the development of skills strategies, reflecting their important role in skills systems as well. These ministries are more likely to lead strategies oriented towards adult learning, lifelong learning, or those heavily focused on responding to the skills needs of the labour market. For instance, in Northern Ireland, the Department for the Economy led the development of the Skills for a 10X Economy – Skills Strategy for Northern Ireland. This department is responsible for a range of employment and skills programmes, as well as for overseeing and funding the further and higher education sectors. As a result, the strategy had a strong emphasis on lifelong learning, as well as reducing skills imbalances and developing digital skills. Moreover, in Greece, the public employment service, DYPA, initiated a skills strategy to ensure the supply of labour-market-relevant skills through upskilling and reskilling programmes. The strategy is continuously evaluated and updated based on the latest labour market data (Greek Public Employment Service, 2023[29]).

The role of the champion can be shared by multiple actors working together. Frequently, ministries of education, employment, and economic affairs join forces in promoting holistic skills strategies that co‑ordinate their priorities. In Germany, for example, the skills strategy was jointly led by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Government of Germany, 2019[19]). These ministries, together with the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, have worked together to develop and promote the skills strategy. Additionally, in Luxembourg, the skills strategy was led by three ministries, namely the Ministry of Education, Children and Youth, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, and the Ministry of Labour, Employment and the Social and Solidarity Economy, in addition to the National Employment Agency (OECD, 2023[8]). Stakeholders consulted in this project were very positive about the effectiveness of the co-ordination between these actors, which ensured the involvement of multiple stakeholders and the delegation of responsibilities to appropriate subnational actors and agencies during implementation.

In summary, skills strategies benefit significantly when championed by government officials such as key ministers, their deputies or other senior officials responsible for skills policy. Ministers leading the skills strategy have played crucial roles in many countries in securing cabinet support, engaging stakeholders and promoting these initiatives. Collaboration between ministries overseeing education, employment and economic affairs has also been instrumental in ensuring a holistic approach to developing skills strategies, including comprehensive stakeholder involvement and effective implementation. The need for such co‑ordination highlights the importance of champions within government in advancing national skills agendas.

Countries can also find a champion from outside government, which can bring several advantages. Relying solely on politically positioned champions can be risky for the effectiveness of a strategy. Government collapses, new election cycles or cabinet reshuffles can lead to the removal of political champions, jeopardising strategy momentum and progress. Italy’s example highlights these risks (see Box 2.6). The OECD Skills Strategy for Italy, championed by the prime minister’s office, stalled after a change in leadership in 2018 (OECD, 2018[40]). This disruption underscores the benefits of non-political champions, who may ensure sustained support and progress amid political transitions.

Since non-political champions are less vulnerable to political changes, countries can consider assigning the role of champion to a non-political actor or sharing the responsibility of championing the skills strategy between governmental and non-governmental champions. For example, the Netherlands included a non-governmental body, SER, as one of the champions of its skills strategy, alongside the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (see Box 2.6) (OECD, 2017[10]). By integrating a non-governmental actor into the national project team and skills strategy steering committee, the Netherlands demonstrated an effective approach to enhancing strategy resilience and continuity. This inclusive strategy model could inspire other countries to adopt similar practices, promoting stability and effectiveness in advancing their skills agendas amidst political changes.

Policymakers should find a champion or champions who can secure a mandate and long-term political support for the strategy. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Finding a champion within government: To secure support for the development of the skills strategy and maintain commitment to its implementation, it is helpful to find a champion for the skills strategy within the government. The champion should have the stature and influence to engage and lead senior officials and stakeholders. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to identifying an appropriate champion, it is common for champions to come from the ministries that are leading the development of skills strategies or that initiated the skills strategy since they are familiar with the policy and have access to most of the stakeholders involved. Often, champions are ministers with skills-relevant portfolios, such as education, employment, and economic affairs, or their deputies. The role of the champion is frequently shared by senior officials within these portfolios, ensuring comprehensive and influential leadership.

• Finding a champion outside government: To safeguard the continuity of the skills strategy amid political changes, it is advantageous to find a champion from outside the government as well. By securing a non-political champion, the skills strategy is better positioned to maintain relevance in the face of expected or unexpected shifts in government or government priorities. An external champion can also collaborate with a governmental counterpart, thereby enhancing their combined influence and effectiveness in championing the strategy.

Skills policy is a composite policy domain that integrates elements of education, employment, economic development, innovation, immigration and tax policy, to name a few. Furthermore, responsibilities for skills policy are often spread across multiple levels of government. At the national level, government ministries may take the lead in strategy formulation, while subnational entities may contribute by providing insights into local skills requirements and supporting strategy implementation. Consequently, developing effective skills strategies requires a comprehensive whole-of-government approach that promotes co-ordination and collaboration among diverse ministerial portfolios and levels of government.

Developing a coherent skills strategy requires co-ordination and collaboration among various government ministries and agencies responsible for skills policy. Within the government, skills policy spans multiple ministerial portfolios, including education, employment and economic development, representing a horizontal division of responsibilities. Concurrently, skills policy concerns different levels of government, from central to local, representing a vertical division of responsibilities.

Engaging different parts and levels of government and co-ordinating their views to deliver a cohesive skills strategy can be challenging. It involves managing diverse and potentially conflicting interests and perspectives while ensuring that skills policy remains a priority amidst other pressing issues. Effective co‑ordination is essential to balance these interests and create a unified approach that addresses the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders involved.

A crucial step in developing a skills strategy is bringing together ministries and agencies with roles and responsibilities in skills policy to plan and implement the strategy. This requires establishing mechanisms to facilitate co-ordination and collaboration among government actors who may have differing interests, mandates and resource constraints. Given the horizontal and vertical dimensions of whole-of-government co-ordination, countries may need to establish mechanisms that facilitate co-ordination both among ministries and agencies at the national level and among entities responsible for skills policy at the regional and local levels.

Effective whole-of-government collaboration requires a shared lexicon and framework for discussing skills issues. Countries can draw inspiration from the 2019 OECD Skills Strategy Framework (OECD, 2019[2]), which identifies three key dimensions for assessing the performance of skills systems: developing relevant skills over the life course, using skills effectively in work and society, and strengthening the governance of skills systems. The framework also outlines specific policy measures associated with each dimension and could serve as a starting point for determining the topics a skills strategy might include. For a more detailed description of the OECD Skills Strategy Framework, see Lesson 4 and Box 2.4.

Establishing effective mechanisms for national-level collaboration is crucial for the successful development and implementation of skills strategies in EU countries. To foster whole-of-government collaboration, countries can employ various mechanisms depending on the number and types of government ministries and agencies involved in developing the skills strategy.

Countries in the EU have engaged multiple and diverse ministries when developing their skills strategies. As illustrated in Panel A of Figure 2.9, representatives of the ministries responsible for education and employment or labour are always involved in the development of skills strategies. In 81% of the skills strategies, the ministry responsible for economic affairs is also involved in the development, and in about 58% of the skills strategies, the ministries responsible for innovation or finance contribute to developing skills strategies. The involvement of the ministry in charge of the interior is less common (31% of skills strategies). Most skills strategies also involve other government bodies, which may include other ministries or non-ministerial government organisations. A good example of the extensive involvement of different ministries is the development of the skills strategy for Slovenia, which included representatives from several ministries with responsibilities in skills policy, including those responsible for education, the economy, labour, the environment, health, and agriculture (see Box 2.7) (OECD, 2017[3]). Overall, it is important that countries involve all ministries that bear significant responsibility in skills policy.

Effective whole-of-government engagement at the national level requires equitable participation among various ministries, ensuring their perspectives are incorporated into the policy process. When one or more ministries dominate discussions, others may feel their voices are not adequately heard. Ideally, the leadership of skills strategy processes should involve multiple ministries rather than a single one (see also Lesson 5), promoting collaborative governance and balanced representation. A notable good-practice example is the German skills strategy, developed jointly by the three ministries responsible for education, labour, and the economy (Government of Germany, 2019[19]). This approach reflects Germany's well-established tradition of inter-governmental co-operation in skills policy (see Box 2.7). By integrating the expertise and mandates of each ministry, Germany has fostered inclusive dialogue and co-ordination in skills development.

Countries can choose from various mechanisms to promote whole-of-government collaboration at the national level for skills strategies. They range from less formal mechanisms, such as workshops, roundtables or surveys, to more formal co-ordination mechanisms between different ministries and agencies, such as interministerial project teams or formal bodies for co-ordination. While less formal mechanisms are most prevalent, consulted stakeholders emphasise the importance of more formal co‑ordination mechanisms for institutionalising the commitment to skills policy and providing formal structures for decision making. These include the creation of dedicated formal skills bodies or councils.

The number of government ministries and agencies involved in developing skills strategies has implications for the types of mechanisms that may be most effective for facilitating co-ordination and collaboration. As illustrated in Figure 2.10, for skills strategies involving a smaller number of governmental actors, more informal mechanisms may suffice, as co-ordination will be easier to facilitate and consensus easier to achieve. However, when a greater number of governmental actors are involved, more formal mechanisms may be needed to manage the complexity of negotiations and decision making. Even when a smaller number of actors is involved, formal mechanisms can be advantageous as they institutionalise the commitment to skills policy and provide formal structures for decision making.

The most common approach to fostering whole-of-government co-ordination on skills strategies in EU countries is the establishment of interministerial national project teams or working groups involving officials from relevant government portfolios (see Panel B in Figure 2.9). In 81% of skills strategies across the European Union, these teams operate at a professional or technical level. For instance, for Croatia’s skills strategy (Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia, 2023[42]), a national project team was formed that consisted of officials at the technical and operational levels, including those from the ministries responsible for education and employment (see Box 2.7). These technical-level project teams typically take on an operational role, usually leading the development of the strategy and overseeing its implementation.

Less frequently (38% of cases), interministerial project teams or working groups comprise senior or executive-level officials, such as ministers, state secretaries or their deputies. For example, Slovenia’s skills strategy involved an interministerial project team with multiple ministers and state secretaries (OECD, 2017[3]). When project teams are composed of senior or executive-level officials, they typically assume a steering role, providing overarching guidance to working groups at the technical-operational level on strategy development and implementation.

Some countries use formal skills bodies or councils to foster whole-of-government co-ordination and collaboration (OECD, forthcoming[43]). For example, following the publication of the OECD Skills Strategy for Ireland (OECD, 2023[15]), Ireland established the High Level Skills Implementation Group (HLSIG) in 2023, which has been tasked with the delivery of whole-of-government and whole-of-tertiary engagement on national skills policy. The HLSIG brings together representatives from all government departments and agencies with skills responsibilities, and it complements the National Skills Council, which is the main platform for strategic engagement with industry and social partners.

In some cases, formal bodies are created explicitly to co-ordinate the work of developing and implementing a skills strategy. For instance, during the development of its skills strategy, Norway created the Skills Policy Council, a new governance arrangement comprised of representatives of government and stakeholders (see also Box 2.8 in Lesson 7) (Ministry of Education and Research of Norway, 2017[44]). The Council is led by the ministry responsible for education and includes representatives of the ministries of labour, local government, and trade. It is tasked with promoting continued co-operation among the parties involved in developing the strategy (OECD, 2020[39]). While the Council is only an advisory body that gives non-binding advice, it represents one of the most structured examples of forums enacting the whole-of-government approach in Europe.

In addition to these mechanisms, countries have adopted various other approaches to reinforce the commitment of government actors to the skills strategy and enhance cross-government co-ordination. One notable approach is the formal appointment of relevant government actors as “strategy partners”. This practice involves assigning responsibility for developing the strategy to specific government entities, thereby clarifying leadership roles and reinforcing accountability for results. This method has been applied by 31% of skills strategies across the European Union, and their contributions have been positively assessed. For instance, stakeholders in Latvia’s skills strategy appreciated the formal designation of governmental actors as “strategy partners”, which helped to facilitate collaboration between different levels of government in developing the skills strategy (Latvian Cabinet of Ministers, 2021[18]).

A less common but effective approach is to seek parliamentary approval of the strategy, a method utilised in 12% of strategies. This endorsement can enhance the political significance of the strategy and increase accountability throughout its implementation. Parliamentary approval ensures that the strategy aligns with national priorities and mandates, thereby reinforcing governmental commitment to its success.

In summary, establishing effective mechanisms for national-level collaboration is critical for the successful development and implementation of skills strategies in EU countries. While less formal approaches, such as workshops and surveys, are common, there is generally a need for more formal mechanisms to institutionalise commitment and provide structured decision-making processes. The number and level of involvement of government ministries and agencies play a significant role in determining the appropriate co-ordination methods. Formal bodies, interministerial councils, and parliamentary approval can further reinforce accountability and alignment with national priorities, ensuring a holistic and well-coordinated approach to skills development.

A whole-of-government approach to developing skills strategies poses particular challenges due to decentralised governance structures and the need to involve relevant actors in skills policy beyond the central level of government. Balancing the involvement of central and regional actors becomes crucial to ensure overall policy coherence and effective implementation across all levels of government. Given the importance of decentralised governance structures in many EU countries, about 58% of skills strategies involved officials from regional or local governments (see Panel A in Figure 2.9).

Countries often use informal engagement mechanisms to involve regional and local government actors in developing skills strategies. Approaches employed include consultation events and workshops or roundtables where representatives from both national and subnational governments exchange ideas on how to strengthen the skills system or implement policy recommendations. These platforms bring together different perspectives and raise awareness of the skills strategy across all levels of government. For example, the development of the skills strategy for Spain included workshops with the participation of representatives of the autonomous communities, which have significant responsibility for local policy implementation (see Box 2.7) (OECD, 2015[45]). This approach enabled regional stakeholders to contribute to identifying Spain's skills challenges and proposing solutions alongside their national counterparts. Similarly, Portugal's skills strategy (OECD, 2015[46]) used workshops in different cities to engage local government representatives and foster a collaborative approach (see Box 2.7).

In addition to workshops, collecting written input through surveys or other means provides an alternative or complementary way of engaging regional or local government actors. While less interactive, this method remains valuable for gathering detailed insights and ensuring broad participation in policy formulation. Surveys can capture a wide range of perspectives from different government representatives, including those unable to attend workshops due to logistical or time constraints, thereby enriching the inclusiveness of the policy-making process.

Countries can also strengthen their whole-of-government approach by establishing formal mechanisms to engage with regional and local levels of government. These mechanisms can include involving regional and local actors in dedicated interministerial project teams or working groups, as well as inter-governmental skills bodies or councils. Such structured approaches facilitate coherent policy outcomes that reflect regional and local needs by incorporating their knowledge and expertise into policy deliberations. This helps to ensure that policies are well-informed and tailored to address specific regional and local challenges effectively. Furthermore, by engaging regional and local actors in formal bodies, countries can help institutionalise these collaborative efforts, fostering sustained commitment and alignment across different levels of government in skills policy.

For example, in Latvia, regional actors are involved in the governance of adult education through the Adult Education Governance Council, which is tasked with making decisions on the promotion and support of adult education and training, as well as co-ordinating and monitoring policy (OECD, forthcoming[43]). The Council includes regional actors, such as regional education policy co-ordinators and heads of administration, in addition to representatives of ministries responsible for education, labour affairs, economic affairs, environment and defence (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia, 2020[47]). In the context of the skills strategy, the Council was tasked with supporting the improvement of the professional skills of employees (OECD, 2019[6]).

Establishing mechanisms for collaboration with regional and local levels in the development of skills strategies presents unique challenges and requires balancing the involvement of central and regional actors. Informal engagement methods such as workshops and surveys play a key role in integrating local perspectives and raising awareness of skills strategies. Formal mechanisms, like interministerial teams or inter-governmental bodies, can further institutionalise collaboration, ensuring sustained engagement and coherent policy outcomes that reflect regional needs and priorities. Ultimately, a careful approach that balances regional, local and central perspectives can achieve policy coherence and effective implementation across all levels of government.

Policymakers should adopt a whole-of-government approach to developing a skills strategy. The following actions have been identified as particularly important:

• Establishing mechanisms for collaboration at the national level: Countries should involve all ministries and agencies with key responsibilities for skills policy in the development of skills strategies, ensuring equitable participation among these ministries and incorporating their perspectives into the policy processes. Achieving this aim requires the establishment of effective mechanisms for promoting effective co-ordination and collaboration. The number and level of involvement of government ministries and agencies play a significant role in determining the appropriate co-ordination methods. While less formal approaches, such as workshops and surveys, are common, there is generally a need for more formal mechanisms to institutionalise commitment and provide structured decision-making processes. Formal mechanisms, such as formal skills bodies or councils, interministerial project teams, and parliamentary approval, can further reinforce accountability and alignment with national priorities, ensuring a holistic and well-coordinated approach to skills development.

• Establishing mechanisms for collaboration with regional and local levels: Establishing mechanisms for collaboration with regional and local levels in the development of skills strategies presents unique challenges and requires balancing the involvement of central and regional actors. Informal engagement methods, such as workshops and surveys, play a key role in integrating local perspectives and raising awareness of skills strategies. Formal mechanisms, like interministerial project teams or formal skills bodies or councils with local and regional representatives, can further institutionalise collaboration, ensuring sustained engagement and coherent policy outcomes that reflect regional needs and priorities. Ultimately, a careful approach that balances regional, local and central perspectives can achieve policy coherence and effective implementation across all levels of government.

A wide range of non-governmental stakeholders, such as social partners, education and training providers, learners, and civil society organisations, have an interest and a role to play in developing and implementing skills strategies. It is, therefore, essential to draw on their knowledge and experience to inform the development of skills strategies and to encourage their commitment to both the strategies and their implementation. The involvement of stakeholders helps to identify the most pressing challenges and opportunities and enhances the social legitimacy of the strategy. For these reasons, countries have adopted various mechanisms to involve a diverse range of stakeholders in developing and implementing skills strategies.

Many different groups of stakeholders have an interest and role in ensuring that people develop the right skills and use them effectively. As a result, they have an important role to play in developing and implementing skills strategies. During the development of a skills strategy, stakeholders can provide practical insights into the key skills challenges facing countries and identify opportunities for improvement. Their proximity to the practical aspects of policy implementation also gives policymakers very valuable insights into “what works and what does not” (OECD, 2020[39]). For example, they can provide feedback on the effectiveness of existing public policies, which can help to improve them or highlight the need for policy reform. Additionally, stakeholders can serve as important champions for policy reform and the overall strategy (see Lesson 5). They can also be important partners in the implementation of strategies, such as by raising awareness of the policies available to learners or by directly delivering counselling and training programmes.

However, engaging stakeholders can be challenging (OECD, 2020[48]). Building mutual trust between government and stakeholders is a lengthy process deeply rooted in historical contexts and requires ongoing institutional efforts to build and maintain trust (Newton, Stolle and Zmerli, 2018[49]). Additionally, stakeholder engagement demands significant time and resources, from identifying relevant stakeholders to facilitating their engagement, resolving conflicts, managing power imbalances, and mitigating the risk of undue influence by special interests (OECD, 2020[48]).

To benefit from stakeholder knowledge and build their commitment, achieving meaningful engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders is crucial. This involves both designing appropriate mechanisms for stakeholder engagement and fostering the involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including social partners, education and training providers, learners, and civil society organisations. Effective engagement ensures that diverse perspectives are incorporated into the policy-making process, leading to better co-ordinated and more inclusive skills strategies. Additionally, fostering a culture of collaboration and trust between the government and stakeholders can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the implemented policies.

Policymakers should aim to interact with stakeholders constructively, encouraging meaningful engagement. The level of stakeholder engagement depends on their perception of the importance of the strategy and their role in shaping it. Stakeholders are also more likely to be mobilised when the issues under discussion have distributional implications, particularly in terms of resource allocation. Strategies that propose generic or “lowest common denominator” policies may attract less interest from stakeholders, who prefer agendas that offer tangible opportunities for policy change. Meaningful engagement requires policymakers to genuinely consider stakeholders’ views and ensure their voices are heard and incorporated into decision-making processes. This approach fosters a constructive problem-solving environment rather than a focus on narrow, self-interested bargaining.

To achieve meaningful engagement, it is important to design appropriate mechanisms. Countries currently use a variety of mechanisms to promote stakeholder engagement, ranging from ad hoc consultations to establishing formalised stakeholder forums (OECD, forthcoming[43]). These engagement mechanisms help to ensure that different perspectives are considered, thereby increasing the relevance and acceptance of policies within the wider community.

As shown in Panel A of Figure 2.11, informal engagement mechanisms are widespread in the European Union, with 81% of skills strategies using ad hoc events, workshops and roundtables to involve stakeholders. These initiatives are highly valued for their effectiveness in promoting inclusiveness, as highlighted during consultations. An advantage of these informal engagement mechanisms is that they can be organised with considerable flexibility, considering the country's particular administrative and organisational structure. For instance, consultations are often held in different regions to ensure that both urban and rural areas are represented and to facilitate access to a wide range of stakeholders.

Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, an increasing number of stakeholder events, workshops and roundtables have also been organised virtually. This was particularly evident during the consultations for Lithuania's skills strategy, where health protocols precluded in-person meetings (see Box 2.8) (OECD, 2021[38]). Online consultations have several advantages, including the opportunity to reach out to a wider range of stakeholders in different locations and the accessibility of meetings. For these reasons, virtual consultation remains widespread even after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is more difficult to encourage active engagement in online discussions than in face-to-face consultations, where conversations flow more naturally and stakeholders build lasting relationships, and possible connectivity issues and levels of digital skills among stakeholders could restrict engagement. Countries should consider having at least some face-to-face interactions alongside online engagement, where possible.

In addition to workshops and virtual events, around 77% of skills strategies involved collecting written input from stakeholders through surveys or public consultations. These types of informal engagement mechanisms are often combined with workshops or events. Public consultations further enhance transparency and trust in the decision-making process, thereby fostering community support and co‑operation. This participatory approach ensures that diverse viewpoints are considered, contributing to more robust and inclusive skills development policies.

While informal engagement mechanisms offer significant benefits, formalised and ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms are preferred, as they provide a sustainable foundation for skills strategies. Informal mechanisms require reinvention with each new policy (OECD, 2020[48]), whereas formal mechanisms for engaging stakeholders in developing skills strategies can yield enduring outcomes (OECD, forthcoming[43]).

Formal types of engagement are widespread in skills strategies across the European Union, with stakeholders having official roles in public bodies in 62% of cases. For instance, stakeholders may participate in project teams and working groups or be formally designated as strategy partners. The Netherlands provides a notable example of best practice in this regard, where the project team for developing the skills strategy included SER alongside ministries (see Box 2.8). This initiative, as covered earlier (see Lesson 5), marked the Netherlands as the first country to integrate a non-governmental body into its steering group (OECD, 2017[10]). This inclusive approach empowered stakeholders to play a pivotal role in identifying the Netherlands' key skills challenges.

Other formal engagement mechanisms may build on existing formal bodies for stakeholder engagement. For example, this is the case of Finland's National Forum for Skills Anticipation (Osaamisen ennakointifoorumi). The Forum is operated by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Board of Education and provides expert insight into future skills needs. It includes sector groups comprising social partners, representatives of education providers and researchers tasked with anticipating sectoral skills needs and making recommendations for enhancing education and training to the government (OECD, forthcoming[43]).

Engaging stakeholders meaningfully through various mechanisms is crucial for effective skills strategy development. Stakeholder mobilisation hinges on the perceived importance of strategies and their potential impact on resource allocation. Policies that offer tangible opportunities for change rather than generic solutions tend to garner greater stakeholder interest and support. Meaningful engagement requires policymakers to genuinely consider stakeholder perspectives and incorporate them into decision-making processes, fostering constructive problem-solving environments. Utilising a mix of informal mechanisms, such as workshops and virtual consultations, alongside formalised stakeholder forums, ensures diverse viewpoints are heard, enhancing policy relevance and social legitimacy. Establishing ongoing mechanisms for stakeholder involvement beyond strategy development is essential for sustaining dialogue and improving skills policies over time.

It is essential to engage a wide range of stakeholders to gather diverse perspectives and insights and to build broad legitimacy for skills strategies and their proposed actions. Relevant stakeholders that should be involved include employers, trade unions, education and training providers, schools and civil society organisations. This inclusive approach ensures that skills strategies are comprehensive, addressing the needs and concerns of all relevant parties, thereby fostering more effective and widely supported outcomes.

As shown in Panel B of Figure 2.11, a wide range of stakeholders are involved in developing and implementing skills strategies in EU countries. Employers’ organisations and trade unions are consistently involved. Between 73% and 77% of skills strategies also include input from VET providers, higher education institutions, and adult learning providers during their development. However, the perspectives from representatives of primary and secondary school representatives are included in only 42% of strategies. Research institutions and civil society organisations contribute to around 70% of strategies. Interestingly, only 46% of strategies actively seek input from learners and their families, often through student associations or unions.

A critical factor in considering how to involve stakeholders is whether they operate at the national or subnational level. Generally, employer associations and labour unions tend to organise and engage at the national level to influence labour market policy, but they also operate at regional and local levels, especially in countries where responsibility for labour market policies is devolved to regions or are co-managed between national and regional authorities. In contrast, education stakeholders often have a subnational orientation, particularly in countries with decentralised education governance structures (OECD, 2019[2]). As policy making requires the involvement of stakeholders close to the field, stakeholder engagement should prominently include the subnational level. For instance, Poland’s skills strategy has benefited significantly from the expertise of regional stakeholders (see Box 2.8) (Ministry of Education of Poland, 2020[17]; OECD, 2019[50]). In general, stakeholder engagement at multiple levels ensures a comprehensive understanding of the issues and fosters more effective and locally relevant policy outcomes.

Special efforts should be made to involve traditionally under-represented groups, as they often have unique and important insights and can play a crucial role in achieving the strategy's objectives. For example, SMEs tend to be less involved in policy dialogue than larger employers despite their key role as employers and providers of vocational training. Civil society organisations are another example of a group that has traditionally been less involved in skills policy dialogue despite having valuable information on the barriers faced by the most disadvantaged groups in society to participate in learning and activating their skills. In addition, civil society organisations play an important role in reaching out to these groups to encourage and support their participation in learning and the labour market and are, themselves, often important providers of counselling and training services to these groups. 

In the cases of both SMEs and civil society organisations, their more limited engagement in dialogue is related to their smaller scale, which means they have fewer resources to devote to non-essential activities. Countries can adopt certain practices to make sure these voices are heard. For example, virtual consultations are an effective way to engage more stakeholders than in-person meetings (see above). Additionally, umbrella organisations can successfully represent smaller groups of stakeholders. A good example is Ireland, where The Wheel, a national association of community and voluntary organisations, charities, and social enterprises, participated in developing the skills strategy and successfully advocated for civil society organisations' positions (OECD, 2023[15]). Since 2024, The Wheel is also represented in Ireland’s National Skills Council.

It is generally advisable to involve a wide range of stakeholders to ensure all relevant voices are heard and to gain broad support for the skills strategy. However, the number of stakeholders involved and the methods of their engagement depend on various factors, including a country’s political traditions. From this perspective, countries can be considered to be on a spectrum: at one end, there are those with a tradition of formal involvement of selected stakeholders in policy making (corporatism), and at the other end, those with a tradition of free competition for influence by a wide range of stakeholders (pluralism). For example, Germany has a strong corporatist tradition, characterised by formal and structured co-operation between the government, business associations and labour unions. In contrast, the United Kingdom exemplifies a pluralist approach to policy making. Here, a wide range of interest groups, including business associations, labour unions, civil society organisations, and others, compete for influence and representation, and engagement focuses on accommodating different views through various channels of influence and negotiation.

Generally, most European countries lie between these poles, displaying aspects of both corporatist and pluralist traditions. For example, Scandinavian countries, traditionally corporatist, have strong worker representation due to a history of social democratic governments and strong labour unions. This means their governments usually have to pay more attention to the engagement of workers alongside employers (OECD, 2020[39]). In addition, southern European countries display practices that are corporatist in nature despite having fewer encompassing associations of employers and workers. Here, efforts are typically made to institutionalise stakeholder engagement structures to ensure the longevity of stakeholder engagement beyond skills strategies (OECD, 2020[39]). Finally, the organisation of stakeholder involvement in Central and Eastern European countries shows significant variation. For example, the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) tend to display features that are more akin to a pluralist tradition, with the insertion of some Scandinavian elements. In contrast, the Visegrad countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic) and other countries in the region (e.g. Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania) feature a stronger role of the state in planning skills policies (OECD, 2020[39]).

A country’s tradition in policy making significantly influences how stakeholders are engaged. Generally, countries with traditions that are more corporatist in nature, such as Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, have regular consultations and joint decision-making processes, reflecting more formal and structured engagement. These countries often establish formal bodies and institutionalised mechanisms for stakeholder participation, ensuring continuous involvement in policy development (Schmitter, 1974[51]). Conversely, in countries with traditions that are more pluralist in nature, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, engagement is more decentralised and informal. A wide range of interest groups participate through various channels, such as public consultations, informal meetings, and open forums, allowing for more flexible and dynamic interaction without relying on rigid structures. Understanding these different traditions helps policymakers design appropriate and feasible engagement strategies for their national contexts.

Policy traditions are reflected in the number of stakeholders engaged in the development of skills strategies across the European Union (see Figure 2.12). Many skills strategies involve between 100 and 499 stakeholders. For example, Germany, with its corporatist traditions, engaged around 100‑199 stakeholders in developing its skills strategy, finding their involvement crucial for the consensus around joint actions in skills policy. Ireland, with more pluralist traits, engaged 200-499 stakeholders, noting the importance of hearing all voices but also the challenge of reaching common ground on necessary actions. Strategies involving 500 or more stakeholders are less common but indicate extensive development processes. Norway's skills strategy, which involved over 500 stakeholders, is an example of a highly comprehensive approach featuring tripartite co-operation among the government, social partners, and adult education associations, demonstrating a strong commitment to inclusive policy making (see Box 2.8) (OECD, 2014[52]).

Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders is essential for developing inclusive and effective skills strategies. This ensures the consideration of a broad spectrum of perspectives, including employers, trade unions, education providers and civil society organisations, thereby enhancing a strategy’s legitimacy and relevance. While certain stakeholders, such as employers’ organisations and trade unions, are consistently engaged, it is crucial to systematically include perspectives from education and training providers, especially those with regional competencies in skills policy. Moreover, special attention should be given to traditionally under-represented groups, such as SMEs and civil society organisations. These groups can offer unique insights into skills needs and barriers to learning and employment, enriching the policy-making process. The form and level of stakeholder engagement are influenced by countries’ established traditions of policy making, but effective engagement methods exist within all traditions.

Policymakers should engage with stakeholders to benefit from their knowledge and build commitment. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Designing appropriate mechanisms for stakeholder engagement: Engaging stakeholders meaningfully through various mechanisms is crucial for effective skills strategy development. Skills strategies that offer tangible opportunities for change rather than generic solutions tend to garner greater stakeholder interest and support. Meaningful engagement requires policymakers to genuinely consider stakeholder perspectives and incorporate them into decision-making processes, fostering constructive problem-solving environments. Utilising a mix of informal mechanisms, such as workshops and virtual consultations, alongside formalised stakeholder forums, ensures diverse viewpoints are heard, enhancing policy relevance and social legitimacy. Establishing ongoing mechanisms for stakeholder involvement beyond strategy development is essential for sustaining dialogue and improving skills policies over time.

• Fostering the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders: Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders is essential for developing inclusive and effective skills strategies. This ensures the consideration of a broad spectrum of perspectives, including employers, trade unions, education providers, and civil society organisations, thereby enhancing the strategy's legitimacy and relevance. While certain stakeholders, such as employers' organisations and trade unions, are consistently engaged, it is crucial to systematically include perspectives from education and training providers, especially those with regional competencies in skills policy. Moreover, special attention should be given to traditionally under-represented groups, such as SMEs and civil society organisations. These groups can offer unique insights into skills needs and barriers to learning and employment, enriching the policy-making process. The form and level of stakeholder engagement are influenced by countries’ established traditions of policy making, but effective engagement methods exist within all traditions.

There are various methods for implementing skills strategies, ranging from informal approaches that indirectly influence skills policy to formal action-oriented approaches involving detailed implementation plans. Countries should tailor their implementation approach to their objectives and local context, adapting to their specific needs and policy traditions. Whether through formal implementation plans that specify responsibilities, funding and timelines or through other mechanisms that maximise impact when influencing policy making indirectly, the implementation approach must support the country’s strategic and operational objectives.

Having a clear approach to implementation is crucial to the success of a skills strategy. This involves defining how governments will translate their objectives, particularly operational objectives (see Lesson 1), into achievable policy actions. For example, if a country aims to address specific skills challenges, such as skills shortages, through the implementation of specific policy actions, then a formal implementation plan can help by assigning clear responsibilities to actors and stakeholders, identifying funding sources and timelines, establishing monitoring and reporting guidelines, and setting implementation targets. By agreeing on such implementation details with relevant government actors and stakeholders from the outset, countries can more easily streamline the operationalisation of their skills strategies, deliver concrete policy actions and ensure efficiency (OECD, 2020[53]).

It is important to carefully consider the selection of an implementation approach to ensure that it aligns well with the strategy's strategic and operational objectives. Many strategies fail to achieve their objectives – or worse, are unused – because policymakers do not adequately plan for implementation. A poorly designed implementation approach can result in poor alignment between responsible government actors and stakeholders, inadequate institutional capacity, and insufficient allocation of time and resources for executing the strategy's policy actions. Ineffective implementation of skills strategy can result in suboptimal skills outcomes and, ultimately, waste public resources and erode public trust in governments’ effectiveness (OECD, 2018[54]).

Adopting an implementation approach that advances the strategy's objectives involves considering whether a formal implementation plan is needed. As described above, countries will likely need to develop formal implementation plans if they aim to use their strategies to influence policy making directly by introducing specific policy actions (see operational objectives in Lesson 1). Regardless of the format of the implementation plan, flexibility must be incorporated to ensure relevance and enable countries to respond effectively to emerging trends and shocks.

On the other hand, countries may not always need an implementation plan. This could be the case when the operational objective is to use the strategy to exert an indirect influence on policy making (e.g. raise awareness of skills issues and foster stakeholder commitment). In some cases, countries may also choose not to develop an implementation plan for other reasons, such as time and resource constraints. While the absence of an implementation plan can restrict the strategy's effectiveness, countries have demonstrated that it is still possible to exert an indirect yet enduring influence on policy making by putting certain measures in place, such as establishing oversight bodies and formalising partnerships.

The decision to develop a formal implementation plan will hinge on the operational objectives of the strategy (see Lesson 1). For example, in cases where countries aim to address specific skills challenges, such as skills shortages, through concrete policy actions, such as learning incentives or establishing new skills bodies, a detailed implementation plan is typically necessary. This approach provides policymakers with clear guidance on how and when to implement policy actions. The decision on whether to create an implementation plan should occur early in strategy development rather than at the end, as outlining implementation details requires substantial planning, time and resources from policymakers.

A comprehensive implementation plan consists of several key elements. These include clearly delineating roles and responsibilities for all involved partners, identifying the human and financial resources needed and their sources, establishing precise implementation timelines, and outlining mechanisms to monitor policy outcomes and make necessary adjustments (OECD, 2020[53]). Typically, much of this detailed information is incorporated in implementation plans developed in EU countries (see Figure 2.13). Generally, countries that opt for a separate implementation plan instead of one integrated into the skills strategy provide more detailed insights into these aspects.

Responsibilities for implementation are included in 70% of skills strategies developed across the European Union, with equal shares of them in the skills strategy itself and in separate implementation plans (both at 35%) (see Figure 2.13). The responsibilities for implementing specific policy actions generally correspond with the existing mandates of ministries, facilitating their identification. This could explain why such information is as commonly included for countries with only a skills strategy as for those with both skills strategies and distinct implementation plans.

Strategies with clearly delineated responsibilities promote transparency and facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation (see Lesson 9). By defining roles and responsibilities, these strategies enhance accountability, as they allow actors across various levels of government and stakeholders to understand their roles and what is expected of them by the end of the strategy’s implementation. This also makes it easier to identify which actors and stakeholders to consult when assessing implementation progress for specific skills actions and adapting strategies as necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Moreover, well-defined roles and responsibilities foster co-ordination and alignment across government portfolios and different levels of administration. This co-ordination helps minimise duplication of efforts and optimises the allocation of scarce public resources, ensuring efficient implementation of skills policies.

Other critical information for effectively implementing skills strategies, such as resource requirements, funding sources and implementation timelines, is more frequently documented when countries commit to developing a distinct implementation plan. Some 39% of skills strategies in the European Union specify funding sources (and/or amounts) in a separate implementation plan, and an additional 15% specify them in the skills strategy only. Similarly, 42% of skills strategies define implementation timelines in separate implementation plans, and 12% do so in the skills strategy itself. In practice, this is illustrated by the case of Bulgaria (see Box 2.9), where the potential funding sources and timelines for each specific policy action in the skills strategy are detailed in a separate Action Plan for Skills.

Stakeholders consulted have reported that identifying funding sources and/or timelines can be a complex and time-consuming task. This complexity arises from a number of factors, including the need to plan across multiple electoral cycles (see Lesson 2), the need for extensive discussions and consensus building to finalise these details, and the requirement for specialised expertise that may not always be readily available within government. This added complexity underscores why some countries opt to dedicate resources to developing these operational details in a separate implementation plan.

Developing a formal implementation plan for skills strategies is crucial for ensuring the effective implementation of concrete policy actions that aim to address specific skills challenges. Whether integrated into the strategy or as a separate document, this plan should provide clear guidance on policy actions, roles, responsibilities, funding sources and timelines. This strategic clarity promotes transparency, accountability and efficient resource utilisation across different levels of government, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of skills policies.

• Countries consulted for this project have highlighted the importance of ensuring that skills strategies and their implementation plans can adapt to stay relevant amid rapidly evolving skills needs. These needs are continually shaped by significant trends, such as the digital and green transitions, population ageing, migration trends, and unexpected shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which profoundly impact the demand and supply of skills. Furthermore, changes in government (see Lesson 2) can affect skills policy priorities. To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to establish mechanisms for monitoring skills strategies and their implementation (see also Lesson 9), enabling timely updates as necessary. These mechanisms are essential to ensure that strategies can dynamically respond to shifts in the economic and social landscape, maintaining their relevance and effectiveness over time.

In practice, the degree of flexibility in implementation varies greatly across countries. This flexibility is largely determined by the extent to which those plans foresee and facilitate their own updates. For instance, Greece’s Strategy for Labour Force Upskilling and Connection to the Labour Market (Greek Public Employment Service, 2023[29]) is updated annually, using the latest information on current and forecasted skills needs in the labour market. Stakeholders have noted that while this approach enhances flexibility and relevance, frequent reviews and updates can increase administrative burden and require close co-ordination across the whole of government and with stakeholders.

Skills strategies with longer-term implementation cycles benefit from built-in monitoring and renewal mechanisms to ensure they can be adapted to changing needs. Many EU countries have skills strategies with a foreseen duration that spans several years, such as four years (12% of countries) or six years (24%), and others up to nine or ten years (18% and 20%, respectively) (see Figure 2.14). Consequently, several countries have introduced regular review and update mechanisms, even for long-term strategies. For example, Croatia has chosen a timeframe of four years for the implementation of the skills strategy, which is aligned with funding cycles for the policy actions outlined in the strategy. However, the government aims to maintain flexibility by conducting mid-term evaluations, allowing for necessary adjustments to be made accordingly. Additionally, Latvia’s EDG (Latvian Cabinet of Ministers, 2021[18]) have a six-year time horizon (2021-2027), but separate, shorter-term implementation plans have been developed for the periods 2021‑2023, 2023-2025 and 2026-2027 (see Box 2.9).

Countries emphasise the need for adaptable skills strategies and implementation plans to remain responsive to evolving skills needs. Establishing robust monitoring mechanisms is crucial for facilitating timely updates and ensuring these strategies are having their intended impact and can be adapted to changing economic, social and environmental circumstances. While some countries design strategies with shorter-term implementation cycles (e.g. one year) to ensure their regular review and update, others with longer-term implementation cycles (e.g. four years or more) may need to incorporate mechanisms and strategies such as regularly scheduled review periods (e.g. mid-term) to ensure their continued relevance. These diverse approaches highlight how flexibility can be built into skills strategies to ensure their ongoing effectiveness and relevance.

While there are many advantages to developing formal implementation plans, many countries opt against creating them due to constraints in time and resources or a perceived lack of necessity. This decision can be justified when the strategy aims to indirectly influence policy making, for example, by raising awareness about the importance of skills or building stakeholder commitment to skills policy reform. Formal implementation plans may also be considered less critical when the strategy targets a limited number of skills policy gaps and policy actions.

Stakeholders have highlighted that the process of developing skills strategies, which involves evaluating the performance of the skills system (see Lesson 4), negotiating and co-constructing the strategy across government (see Lesson 6), and engaging with stakeholders (see Lesson 7), can yield several benefits even in the absence of a formal and detailed implementation plan. These benefits can include establishing a shared skills agenda, promoting accountability among all involved parties, and identifying specific skills policy gaps. For instance, in the Netherlands, despite lacking a detailed implementation plan, the skills strategy helped to boost skills policy, including by contributing to a shared vision and language for skills and lifelong learning. Furthermore, the strategy informed a joint action plan for lifelong learning between 2018 and 2022 and it gave SER the task of collecting and sharing experiences, knowledge and lessons learnt on skills initiatives from the bottom up (see also Box 2.6 in Lesson 5). Similarly, in Flanders (Belgium) (see Box 2.9), the skills strategy also did not include a detailed implementation plan, but it contributed to the development of several policy measures, including the Flemish ILA, and helped establish a shared language for discussing skills among stakeholders. This underscores that even without a formal implementation plan, developing a skills strategy can yield substantial benefits and is valuable for countries.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the absence of a concrete and detailed implementation plan also presents certain challenges. For example, once the skills strategy is developed, government actors and stakeholders may find themselves tasked to act independently without clear accountability for executing the proposed policy actions. This can result in confusion regarding the assignment of responsibilities, timelines for implementation, funding sources and anticipated costs. Despite these challenges, it remains imperative for countries to ensure that their skills strategies are diligently followed up on and leveraged to their fullest potential.

In the absence of an implementation plan, countries have adopted a number of methods to sustain momentum for their skills strategies, ensure accountability among stakeholders, and exert an indirect yet enduring influence on policy making. These methods include establishing official oversight bodies and steering groups (see Lesson 9) and formalising partnerships with stakeholders. Formalising a partnership may or may not include the signing of official agreements or the recognition of the partnership as a unique legal entity. However, at the very least, formalising a partnership entails determining who the members of the partnership will be, agreeing on a shared purpose and objective, assigning roles and some tasks to undertake, and setting requirements to meet regularly.

Consulted countries highlighted the pivotal role of ongoing engagement with social partners and stakeholders in driving the implementation of their skills strategies, advocating for their renewal, and ensuring alignment with evolving economic and societal needs over time. For example, in Germany, the government engaged with stakeholders through the establishment of innovation labs, which are groups where experts from the private sector and civil society meet to develop concrete solutions and recommendations on various skills issues (e.g. use of strategic foresight and analysis tools, the improvement of literacy and basic skills, career guidance for continuing education). These findings then served as input to the skills strategy. In Greece, the government maintains a network of stakeholder co‑ordination bodies at the regional and sectoral levels to pool data and information on the implementation of the strategy and discuss necessary adjustments. The government meets with stakeholders regularly (e.g. at least once a month) to discuss the implementation of the skills strategy. These approaches not only enhance the credibility and effectiveness of skills strategies but also foster a collaborative environment crucial for sustained policy success.

In the European Union, skills strategies vary in their approach to implementation, with some opting for indirect influence over policy making rather than more action-oriented strategies with formal implementation plans. This strategic choice can be justified when the aim is to raise awareness about skills issues, build stakeholder commitment to taking collective action to enhance skills outcomes or address a limited number of skills policy gaps. However, the absence of a formal implementation plan can present challenges such as unclear accountability and confusion over responsibilities, timelines and funding. To mitigate these potential challenges, countries could consider establishing official oversight bodies and formalising their partnerships.

Policymakers should adopt an implementation approach that advances the strategy’s objectives. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Developing a formal implementation plan: Whether in a separate document or integrated within the strategy itself, a formal implementation plan can support the achievement of the skills strategy’s objectives. Such a plan is especially important when the objective is to introduce specific skills policy reforms. A well-designed implementation plan clearly delineates roles and responsibilities for all involved partners, identifies the human and financial resources needed and their respective sources, establishes precise timelines for implementation, and outlines mechanisms to monitor policy outcomes and make necessary adjustments. When deciding whether to develop a formal implementation plan, it is important to consider the time and resources required to identify these implementation details.

• Incorporating flexibility into the implementation plan: The implementation plan for the skills strategy must remain flexible to ensure its continued relevance in the context of evolving trends affecting skills needs, such as the digital and green transitions, population ageing, migration trends, and unexpected shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in government that can have an impact on skills policy priorities. Establishing robust monitoring mechanisms is crucial to facilitate timely updates and ensure these strategies can effectively address changes in economic and social landscapes. While some countries design strategies with shorter-term implementation cycles to ensure their regular review and update, others with longer-term implementation cycles may need to incorporate mechanisms and strategies, such as regularly scheduled review periods, to ensure their continued relevance.

• Maximising the strategy’s impact in the absence of an implementation plan: Countries may choose not to develop a formal implementation plan for a number of reasons, such as constraints in time and resources or a perceived lack of necessity. Skills strategies can yield several benefits even without a formal and detailed implementation plan, including establishing a shared skills agenda, promoting accountability among all involved parties, and identifying specific skills policy gaps. However, the absence of a formal implementation plan can present challenges such as unclear accountability and confusion over responsibilities, timelines and funding. To mitigate these potential challenges, countries could consider establishing official oversight bodies and formalising their partnerships.

To maximise impact and effectively inform policy making, rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are crucial throughout the implementation phase. Without accountability mechanisms, an implementation plan risks not achieving its aims and undermining the support and trust of stakeholders. Potential monitoring and evaluation mechanisms include steering groups, regular reporting requirements, and KPIs tailored to the specific context and requirements of the skills strategy. Adequate human and financial resources should be allocated to ensure these monitoring and evaluation mechanisms operate effectively.

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are crucial for sustaining momentum in skills strategy implementation and ensuring the ongoing effectiveness of policy actions. Skills strategies in the countries studies often span up to 14 years, during which economic, social and environmental contexts can evolve, reshaping skills requirements and shifting policy priorities. Without robust monitoring and evaluation, there is a risk that government ministries, agencies and other stakeholders may lose interest and commitment to implementing the strategy’s actions. These mechanisms play a vital role in holding government and stakeholders accountable, fostering progress in strategy implementation, and enabling timely adjustments as needed to align with changing circumstances. Additionally, monitoring and evaluation ensure that actions remain aligned with the strategy's objectives, thereby maintaining their relevance and impact over time (see Lesson 1).

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms can also facilitate learning from experiences, allowing policymakers to refine and/or adapt strategies based on real-world feedback and outcomes. By systematically tracking progress and assessing outcomes, policymakers gain valuable insights into the effectiveness of their strategies and the impact on the skills system. This process enables them to identify successes, challenges and areas for improvement. With this knowledge, policymakers can refine strategies, adjust priorities, and allocate resources more effectively to address evolving needs and emerging opportunities.

To benefit from effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of skills strategies, countries should select the appropriate mechanisms tailored to their specific needs. Countries employ diverse methods to monitor and evaluate skills strategies, and the choice of mechanisms is heavily influenced by the selected implementation approach, as well as broader institutional legacies and specific national contexts. Furthermore, monitoring and evaluating skills strategies require significant time, effort and resources. It is essential to allocate sufficient human and financial resources to build the capacity needed for robust monitoring and evaluation systems.

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are very important for assessing the progress of implementing skills strategies and their impacts. As shown in Figure 2.15, 46% of skills strategies across the European Union have regular reporting requirements, with ministries and agencies responsible for strategy implementation providing regular updates on their activities. These assessments can be conducted by the (internal) governmental entity responsible for their implementation or an (external) independent agency, with the latter appearing more objective and bolstering trust and support for the strategy. Across EU countries, assessments are more likely to be performed by internal government actors (35%) than external agencies (27%).

Countries employ diverse methods to monitor and evaluate skills strategies. Quantitative mechanisms, such as KPIs and other numerical reporting requirements, offer measurable data on progress and outcomes. Qualitative approaches involve benchmarks, surveys and case studies to gather detailed, descriptive information on the effectiveness of the strategies. By selecting the right mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, countries can gain a comprehensive understanding of how well their skills strategies are being implemented and where improvements may be needed.

The selection of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for skills strategies is heavily influenced by institutional legacies and specific national contexts. Institutional legacies encompass historical and cultural practices that shape how countries approach policy implementation and evaluation. For example, countries like Latvia have longstanding traditions of using KPIs to monitor policies, supported by well-established systems for data selection and analysis. Conversely, other countries might rely more on qualitative benchmarks due to their own institutional legacies and the nature of their skills strategies. These countries may have a tradition of using assessment reports, case studies and expert evaluations to capture the impacts of their policies. These factors together create a unique framework for each country, influencing how monitoring and evaluation processes are tailored to meet their specific needs and objectives.

The implementation approach chosen for strategies (see Lesson 8) also significantly influences the selection of monitoring and evaluation methods. Specifically, a country’s decision on whether to develop formal implementation plans and the specific formats of those plans are critical considerations in choosing the appropriate monitoring and evaluation approach.

In countries opting for strategies that more directly influence policy making, such as by developing formal and detailed implementation plans, KPIs are vital. These KPIs demonstrate accountability in implementing policies and assess their effectiveness, ensuring that the reforms achieve their intended outcomes and adapt as necessary to meet evolving needs. For instance, the skills strategy in Croatia has a structured implementation process and detailed implementation plans, with KPIs to ensure that each action is implemented (Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia, 2023[42]). Similarly, the Action Plan for Skills in Bulgaria incorporates milestones and KPIs to monitor and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of its recommendations (see Box 2.10). Effective KPIs are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound, offering actionable insights to keep organisations focused on their objectives. Across EU countries, 42% of strategies use KPIs for monitoring the implementation of their skills strategies (see Figure 2.15).

In countries where skills strategies aim to influence policy more indirectly, such as by fostering awareness and garnering stakeholder commitment to skills policy reform, clear KPIs and quantitative reporting requirements might not be suitable. Without a detailed implementation plan with assigned roles and responsibilities, setting specific quantitative targets becomes challenging. In such contexts, qualitative benchmarks are often more appropriate for capturing the strategy’s intended impact. For example, Hungary’s Framework Strategy for the Policy of Lifelong Learning 2014-2020 lacked a detailed implementation plan, relying instead on assessment reports to monitor policy recommendations (Government of Hungary, 2014[11]). Similarly, Estonia evaluates its strategy annually through performance reports from the Ministry of Education and Research, supplemented by reports from implementing organisations and external assessments (see Box 2.10). Across the European Union, 27% of strategies use qualitative benchmarks and/or targets (see Figure 2.15).

Steering groups or other oversight bodies can also play an important role in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of skills strategies. These bodies typically include representatives from the different ministries and stakeholder groups who have an active role in skills policy and the implementation of the skills strategy, but they may also involve experts in skills development, data analysis and policy evaluation. By regularly reviewing progress, offering strategic advice, and holding implementers accountable, these oversight bodies help ensure that skills strategies are effectively and efficiently carried out, and aligned with the strategy's objectives. These oversight bodies are also important for ensuring that skills strategies are not discontinued and remain relevant amidst political changes. For instance, establishing permanent oversight and co-ordination bodies responsible for administering the policy actions outlined in the strategy can help ensure continuity. Around 40% of skills strategies (see Figure 2.3 in Lesson 1) are characterised by the establishment or use of specific groups or committees with an active role in overseeing the implementation of the skills strategy. Norway is a notable example, with a Skills Policy Council that has been empowered to oversee the strategy’s implementation (see Box 2.10) (OECD, 2014[52]).

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are crucial for assessing the effectiveness of skills strategies, and countries should select the right mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. Informed by institutional legacies, specific national contexts, and the chosen implementation approach, countries should ensure these mechanisms are tailored to their unique circumstances. Quantitative methods, such as KPIs, provide measurable data on progress, while qualitative methods, such as surveys and case studies, offer detailed insights into the strategies' impact. Additionally, oversight bodies play a vital role in maintaining the strategy's effectiveness and relevance over time by regularly reviewing progress and holding implementers accountable. These combined efforts help ensure that skills strategies remain adaptive and aligned with evolving policy needs.

Effective monitoring and evaluation of skills strategies requires adequate time, effort and resources. Stakeholders have emphasised the importance of allocating sufficient human and financial resources to build the capacity needed for robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Adequate resources enable effective oversight of implementation progress, ensuring the strategy remains on track and responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities.

Allocating adequate human resources is crucial for the effective monitoring and evaluation of skills strategies. Government representatives have indicated that a key challenge is the insufficient capacity to conduct these evaluations, especially when smaller actors are involved. For instance, in Croatia, regional actors are responsible for monitoring the implementation of the skills strategy, but they report that they lack sufficient personnel for this work. This underscores the importance of prioritising the allocation of adequate resources, including by employing skilled professionals with expertise in monitoring and evaluation methodologies. Continuous training and development for staff is also important to keep them updated on the latest monitoring and evaluation tools and techniques. Additionally, having dedicated personnel to manage stakeholder engagement is vital for integrating diverse inputs into the monitoring and evaluation process. By investing in human resources, organisations can build a competent team capable of conducting thorough and insightful evaluations.

Securing sufficient financial resources is also important for monitoring and evaluation activities. This includes ensuring that the budget is sufficient to allow for data collection, analysis and reporting, which are fundamental components of the evaluation process. Investment in advanced data management systems and analytical tools is necessary to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of monitoring and evaluation. Additionally, consideration should be given to whether funding needs to be set aside for external expertise, such as consulting experts or agencies when specialised skills are required but available within government. Adequate financial resources ensure that monitoring and evaluation processes are comprehensive and can deliver valuable insights.

Building strong institutional capacity is also key to sustaining effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Establishing dedicated units for monitoring and evaluation within organisations ensures a focused effort on monitoring and evaluation tasks. Developing clear frameworks and guidelines standardises monitoring and evaluation processes, ensuring consistency and reliability in evaluations. Latvia is a good example of this. To monitor the implementation of the EDG for 2021-2027, Latvia established a dedicated analytical unit, which follows a nationally set framework stipulated by law. Fostering an institutional culture that values continuous improvement and accountability enhances the overall effectiveness of skills strategies. By strengthening institutional capacity, organisations can ensure that their monitoring and evaluation efforts are systematic, rigorous and capable of driving meaningful outcomes.

Effective monitoring and evaluation of skills strategies requires sufficient allocation of time, effort and resources. Stakeholders stress the need to dedicate adequate human and financial resources to build capacity for robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. This ensures effective oversight of implementation progress, keeping strategies responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities. Investing in skilled professionals, continuous training and stakeholder engagement management enhances evaluation accuracy and integration of diverse inputs, while securing ample financial resources supports comprehensive data collection, analysis and the use of advanced tools for efficient monitoring and evaluation. Establishing dedicated units, clear frameworks, and an accountable institutional culture further strengthens the capacity to drive systematic and impactful evaluations of skills strategies.

Policymakers should monitor and evaluate the implementation of skills strategies to ensure their effectiveness. The following actions have been identified as being of particular importance:

• Selecting the right monitoring and evaluation mechanisms: Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are crucial for assessing the effectiveness of skills strategies, and countries should select the right mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. Informed by institutional legacies, specific national contexts, and the chosen implementation approach, countries should ensure these mechanisms are tailored to their unique circumstances. Quantitative methods, such as KPIs, provide measurable data on progress, while qualitative methods, like surveys and case studies, offer detailed insights into the strategies’ impact. Additionally, oversight bodies play a vital role in maintaining the strategy's effectiveness and relevance over time by regularly reviewing progress and holding implementers accountable. These combined efforts help ensure that skills strategies remain adaptive and aligned with evolving policy needs.

• Allocating adequate resources for monitoring and evaluation: Allocating adequate human, financial, and institutional resources is essential for effective monitoring and evaluation of skills strategies. This ensures effective oversight of implementation progress, keeping strategies responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities. Securing ample financial resources and investing in skilled professionals, continuous training, and stakeholder engagement management are all important, since they will help to enhance evaluation accuracy and support comprehensive data collection, analysis, and the use of advanced tools for efficient monitoring and evaluation. Establishing dedicated units for monitoring and evaluation within organisations, as well developing clear frameworks and an accountable institutional culture further strengthens the capacity to drive systematic and impactful evaluations of skills strategies.

[23] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022), Sustainable Governance Indicators, https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).

[13] Cairney, P. and N. Zahariadis (2016), Multiple streams approach: A flexible metaphor presents an opportunity to operationalize agenda setting processes, https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cairney-zahariadis-2016-proof.pdf.

[20] Department for the Economy (2022), Skills Strategy for Northern Ireland Skills for a 10x Economy, http://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/publications/10x-economy-economic-vision-decade-innovation.

[26] Department of the Taoiseach (2022), Harnessing Digital - The Digital Ireland Framework, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/adf42-harnessing-digital-the-digital-ireland-framework/.

[56] Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (2020), The Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020, https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/haridusvaldkonna_arengukava_2035_kinnittaud_vv_eng_0.pdf.

[35] European Commission (2024), European Skills Agenda, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223&langId=en.

[30] European Commission (2020), European Skills Agenda for Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness and Resilience, https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/european-skills-agenda-sustainable-competitiveness-social-fairness-and-resilience_en.

[32] European Commission (2016), A New Skills Agenda for Europe, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223&langId=en.

[34] Government of Croatia (2018), National Development Strategy Croatia 2030, https://hrvatska2030.hr/.

[14] Government of Germany (2022), Fortführung und Weiterentwicklung: Nationale Weiterbildungs-strategie [Continuation and Development: National Skills Strategy], http://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/de/bildung/weiterbildung/nationale-weiterbildungsstrategie/nationale-weiterbildungsstrategie-bmbf.html (accessed on 23 August 2023).

[19] Government of Germany (2019), National Skills Strategy, http://doku.iab.de/kurzber/2019/kb0819.pdf.

[28] Government of Greece (2022), ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΙΚΟΣ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΜΕΑ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ [Strategic Plan for Vocational Education, Training, Lifelong Learning and Youth 2022-2024], http://www.minedu.gov.gr/publications/docs2020/Στρατηγικό_Σχέδιο_EEKΔΒΜ_προς_Επιτροπή_Βουλής.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2023).

[11] Government of Hungary (2014), Az egész életen át tartó tanulás szakpolitikájának keretstratégiája a 2014/2020 közötti időszakra [Framework Strategy for Lifelong Learning Policy for the Period of 2014-2020], https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/7/fe/20000/.

[9] Government of Hungary (2014), European Parliamentary Research Service: Guide to EU Funding 2023, https://www.horizon-europe.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-06/guide-eu-funding-pdf-9158.pdf.

[27] Government of Ireland (2019), Future Jobs Ireland 2019 - Preparing Now for Tomorrow’s Economy, https://assets.gov.ie/6827/6cbfd223cf354f04ac1d7266032effdb.pdf.

[16] Government of Malta (2023), National Lifelong Learning Strategy 2023-2030, https://education.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/PDF-File-EN-National-LL-Strategy.pdf.

[29] Greek Public Employment Service (2023), Strategy for Labour Force Upskilling and Connection to the Labour Market, https://www.dypa.gov.gr/storage/efropaiko-etos-deksiotiton-2023/dypa-strategy-2023-1.pdf.

[12] Kingdon, J. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Harper Collins, https://books.google.fr/books/about/Agendas_Alternatives_and_Public_Policies.html?id=_gmSQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y.

[18] Latvian Cabinet of Ministers (2021), Education Development Guidelines 2021-2027, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324332-par-izglitibas-attistibas-pamatnostadnem-2021-2027-gadam.

[44] Ministry of Education and Research of Norway (2017), Norwegian Strategy for Skills 2017-2021, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/3c84148f2f394539a3eefdfa27f7524d/strategi-kompetanse-eng.pdf.

[47] Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia (2020), Adult Education Management Board, https://www.izm.gov.lv/lv/pieauguso-izglitibas-parvaldibas-padome.

[17] Ministry of Education of Poland (2020), Integrated Skills Strategy 2030: Policy for Developing Skills in Line with the Idea of Lifelong Learning, https://kwalifikacje.gov.pl/en/news/99-newsletter/newslatter1/1086-integrated-skills-strategy-2030.

[42] Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia (2023), “Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Education System Development Plan for the period until 2027”, https://mzom.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Engleski/National-Implementation-Plan-Croatia.pdf.

[24] Ministry of Science and Education of Croatia (2023), Nacionalni Plan Razvoja Sustava Obrazovanja Za Razdoblje Do 2027 [National Plan for the Development of Education and Training until 2027], Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja, https://mzo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Obrazovanje/AkcijskiINacionalniPlan/Nacionalni-plan-razvoja-sustava-obrazovanja-za-razdoblje-do-2027.pdf.

[49] Newton, K., D. Stolle and S. Zmerli (2018), “Social and Political Trust”, in Uslaner, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust, Oxford University Press, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.013.20.

[25] OECD (2024), Objectives, Actions and Benchmarks for Bulgaria’s Skills Action Plan, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/dg-reform/bulgaria/Objectives-actions-and-benchmarks-for-Bulgaria-Skills-Action-Plan.pdf.

[1] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.

[4] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Bulgaria: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2eb2f34-en.

[15] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Ireland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7b8b40b-en.

[8] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Luxembourg: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92d891a4-en.

[55] OECD (2022), OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Flanders, Belgium: The Faces of Learners in Flanders, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7887a565-en.

[22] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.

[38] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Strategy Lithuania: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/14deb088-en.

[36] OECD (2021), Training in Enterprises: New Evidence from 100 Case Studies, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7d63d210-en.

[33] OECD (2020), OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Latvia: Developing Latvia’s Education Development Guidelines 2021-2027, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ebc98a53-en.

[7] OECD (2020), OECD Skills Strategy Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1857c8af-en.

[5] OECD (2020), OECD Skills Strategy Slovak Republic: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bb688e68-en.

[53] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.

[48] OECD (2020), “Self-assessment tool”, in Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d59bed4-en.

[39] OECD (2020), Strengthening the Governance of the Skills System: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en.

[2] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264313835-en.

[37] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy Flanders: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309791-en.

[6] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy Latvia: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74fe3bf8-en.

[50] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy Poland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b377fbcc-en.

[54] OECD (2018), Implementing Education Policies: Realising Effective Change in Education, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/implementing-education-policies-flyer.pdf.

[40] OECD (2018), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Italy 2017, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264298644-en.

[21] OECD (2018), Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301061-en.

[3] OECD (2017), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Slovenia 2017, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264287709-en.

[10] OECD (2017), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: The Netherlands 2017, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264287655-en.

[46] OECD (2015), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Portugal 2015, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300279-en.

[45] OECD (2015), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Spain 2015, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300262-en.

[52] OECD (2014), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Norway 2014, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264298781-en.

[43] OECD (forthcoming), “Pooling Our Strengths: The Power of Stakeholder Engagement in Education and Skills Policy”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[31] Poland’s Council of Ministers (2020), Integrated Skills Strategy 2030, https://kwalifikacje.gov.pl/en/news/99-newsletter/newslatter1/1086-integrated-skills-strategy-2030 (accessed on 13 September 2023).

[51] Schmitter, P. (1974), “Still the century of corporatism?”, The Review of Politics, Vol. 36/1, pp. 85-131, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/still-the-century-of-corporatism/DD5C2B4745211F043A83B2C301E10BDC.

[41] SER (2018), Action Agenda for Lifelong Development, https://www.ser.nl/nl/thema/leven-lang-ontwikkelen/actie-agenda.