EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 22.10.2026 COM(2026) 564 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE

COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Evaluation on the application of Decision No 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation

between Public Employment Services

{SWD(2026) 318 final}

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The PES Network during the period of evaluation

Public Employment Services (PES) are the main authorities implementing employment

policies to facilitate the labour market integration of jobseekers, helping to match supply and

demand in the labour market. The quality of their services has direct consequences on the

impact of employment policies on the ground and on the employability of individuals seeking

or making use of their services. PES are key actors in ensuring the successful implementation

of relevant EU policy initiatives in the field of employment and, consequently, in strengthening

the EU’s competitiveness.

Decision 573/2014/EU1 on enhanced cooperation between Public Employment Services (PES)

(‘the PES Decision’) formally established the European Network of Public Employment

Services (‘PES Network’). The PES Network aims to foster effective and efficient

collaboration between PES and provide a platform to compare their performance at EU level,

identify good practices and facilitate the development of innovative, evidence-based

employment policies in line with EU-level priorities.

In 2020, the PES Decision was amended by Decision (EU) 2020/1782, which renewed the PES

Network’s mandate until the end of 2027 and introduced the following key objectives: an

increased focus on inclusion and support for vulnerable groups; fostering sustainable and

inclusive growth; and enhancing cooperation between the PES Network and the broader

community of labour-market stakeholders. The amended Decision No 573/2014/EU requires

the Commission to submit by 30 September 2026 an evaluation report on how the Decision has

been implemented In 2023, the Network transitioned to a multiannual work programme

(updated annually) to streamline activities and rationalise planning, contributing to

simplification. As part of ongoing efforts to simplify and streamline data collection processes,

the Network has also enhanced the synergies between data collection for PES benchmarking

and the European Commission’s Labour Market Policies database.

The Network brings together the PES of the EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and

Norway, and the European Commission. The structures of PES vary by country, with

differences in legal status, organisational setup, degree of independence from government and

distribution of tasks across administrative levels.

1 EUR-Lex - 02014D0573-20210101 - EN - EUR-Lex.

2

The Employment Committee (EMCO) has an observer role in the PES Network. The activities

of the Network are financed under the EU programme for Employment and Social Innovation

(EaSI) strand of the European Social Fund+ (ESF+); its secretariat is based in the European

Commission.

While core responsibilities showed little change between 2021 and 20252, PES adapted their

services in response to a tighter labour market. Among other things, PES increasingly focused

on long-term challenges and structural inequalities, with services targeting vulnerable groups

(e.g. long-term unemployed, persons with disabilities, young people, workers over 55,

displaced persons from Ukraine and migrants), or covering these groups under specific

objectives3. In addition, while registered jobseekers remain their core target groups, PES

increased their efforts to provide services for employed individuals at risk of losing their job4

and to support people outside the labour force, including through outreach activities5.

2 PES Capacity Report 2021 p.13 and PES Capacity Report 2025 (including Annex 10). 3 Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025. 4 Early intervention and job-to-job transitions - The evolving role of PES. 5 Hidden potential - Publications Office of the EU, Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025.

3

1.2. Overview of the evaluation methodology

The evaluation assessed the application of the PES Decision over the period 2021-2025 across

the 27 EU Member States (EU-27) and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

This involved a series of research tasks to gather robust evidence, including:

• desk research (comprising over 650 EU-level documents);

• EU-level interviews with 38 stakeholders, including social partners, NGOs, relevant

networks and international organisations, EU agencies and Commission

representatives;

• two surveys targeting Advisers for European PES affairs (AFEPAs) (31 responses),

representatives from EMCO and national employment ministries (22 responses);

• two workshops, and six country case studies (BG, DE, ES, FI, LT, SI)6.

A call for evidence launched in November 2025 ran until the end of December 2025.

2. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Between 2021 and 2025, the PES Network carried out a wide range of activities and produced

an extensive range of outputs, to support PES in a changing labour market.

These included: (i) governance activities (with the active participation of PES senior

management, supported by AFEPAs); (ii) mutual learning (events, analytical and

communication activities); (iii) ‘Benchlearning’, a process designed to help PES across Europe

improve their performance by comparing themselves with peer PES via qualitative and

quantitative assessments; (iv) and contributions to key EU policies.

This section summarises the evaluation’s findings and conclusions on the implementation of

the PES Decision, in line with the five criteria set out in the Commission’s Better Regulation

guidelines: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance.

2.1. Effectiveness

Building on the success of the 2014-2020 period, the application of the amended PES Decision

continued to strengthen cooperation and mutual learning, and support the modernisation of PES

and greater transparency in how they work, while contributing to EU-level policymaking by

providing the collective expertise of European PES.

Benchlearning was successful overall in increasing the transparency of PES performance

and encouraging organisational change, due to its cross-cutting and peer-review approach,

fostering a culture of self-reflection across PES. Benchlearningassessments have increasingly

acted as a trigger for follow-up actions through mutual learning activities, strengthening

the link between diagnosis and implementation. The currently limited dissemination of the

outcomes of Benchlearning assessments, while strengthening trust among the participating

6 The Staff Working Document Evaluation accompanying the proposal for a revised Decision on the PES

Network presents the methodology in further detail.

4

PES, has partially affected the visibility of PES performance among stakeholders outside the

Network.

The PES Network acts as a community of practice, fostering the exchange of knowledge

and operational cooperation on common challenges, which leads to the uptake of good

practices. The availability of different formats for taking part and the involvement of thematic

experts are key success factors, with thematic learning dialogues, working groups, and thematic

review workshops standing out as being particularly conducive to peer learning. Mutual

assistance projects have also delivered tangible benefits, helping PES to directly address areas

for improvement that have been identified through Benchlearning and the European Semester

process.

Engagement in the activities of the Network has led to improvements in PES across several

core areas, including better management of performance, quality and change, and more

strategic approaches to human resources. Service delivery has also improved, in particular

in relation to digitalisation, support to vulnerable groups (including persons with

disabilities), and tailored services for employers. Multiple examples of learning from the

PES Network’s activities have resulted in concrete actions in individual PES, regardless of

their size or their level of maturity. However, capacity and financial constraints (e.g. in smaller

PES), differing structures (e.g. centralised versus decentralised PES), and conflicting national

political priorities continue to influence the speed and scale of the implementation of good

practices disseminated via the Network.

The PES Network strengthened its contribution to EU policy development, monitoring,

and implementation. Compared to the pre-2020 period, the PES Network has expanded the

frequency and scope of its contributions to EU policy design and monitoring, through formal

roles set out in Council Recommendations (e.g. the Youth Guarantee, long-term

unemployment, minimum income) and ad hoc inputs (e.g. targeted consultations, opinion

papers). Contributions to policy implementation have also broadened through the exchange of

knowledge and closer engagement with EU institutions. While the PES Network’s

contributions remain largely focused on employment policies, several examples of input on the

employment aspects of broader policy areas (e.g. labour migration, the green and digital

transition, education and skills) were identified. Nonetheless, the Network’s visibility in the

EU policy landscape remains an area for potential improvement, to ensure its expertise can

be leveraged further.

In line with the stronger focus on cooperation with labour market stakeholders in the amended

PES Decision, collaboration between the Network and key actors increased (e.g. EU-level

and international institutions, social partners, networks and committees). Stakeholders external

to the Network see cooperation as an area to be further developed in the years to come.

5

2.2. Efficiency

The implementation of PES Decision activities has been cost-effective. The total annual

cost of supporting the PES Network and its programme of activities is estimated at

EUR 2.2 million - lower than the annual cost for the previous period (EUR 3.12 million or

EUR 3.99 million based on 2024 prices), primarily due to a greater reliance on digital tools,

including an increased number of online events, allowing for activities to take place more

efficiently while keeping costs down.

Most PES do not systematically monitor the amount of time or financial resources they

devote to their participation in the Network. Where available, estimates indicate

considerable variation between countries, from 10-30 FTE days to 500-1 000 days annually.

Additional costs (e.g. travel, translation) were generally low, with only a small number

reporting a higher level of expenditure. These investments of time and money are widely

regarded as reasonable and proportionate to the benefits achieved, as the Network acts as a

catalyst for PES modernisation, resource savings and institutional resilience.

In particular, Benchlearning and mutual learning activities, while requiring upfront costs in

terms of staff time, deliver particularly high value for money by accelerating reform

processes, reducing duplication of effort, and supporting more efficient use of national

resources. These activities generate significant efficiencies for individual PES, allowing them

to benefit from intelligence on international developments, advice on modernisation, and

performance assessment.

2.3. Coherence

The amended PES Decision is consistent with and complementary to EU employment

policies and related funding instruments (e.g. the European Pillar of Social Rights, ESF+,

the European Semester). Several initiatives (e.g. the Youth Guarantee, the European Skills

Guarantee) explicitly reference the Network or the key role of PES in their monitoring and

implementation.

The PES Decision is also coherent with and complements the employment aspects of

legislative and policy instruments tackling broader policy areas (e.g. migration, the green

and digital transitions, and competitiveness). Between 2021 and 2025, efforts increased to

improve synergies with policy processes linked to EU enlargement and labour mobility, as well

as with EU agencies under the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and

Inclusion (Cedefop, Eurofound, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the

European Training Foundation and the European Labour Authority), with further scope for

improvement.

The PES Decision is coherent with and complements national employment policies, with

Network activities often supporting national responses to common labour market challenges.

The PES Decision shows good internal coherence, with appropriate activities and inputs to

achieve its objectives. The central coordinating role of the PES Network’s secretariat is

essential for ensuring consistency, synergies and the effective implementation of its activities.

6

2.4. EU added value

The amended PES Decision has generated EU added value, underlining the importance

of extending the Decision beyond 2027. Key examples of the added value generated include:

(i) accelerating PES reform through comparative evidence; (ii) peer learning and actionable

Benchlearning recommendations; (iii) the availability of comparable data on PES performance

on different labour market issues; (iv) faster and more cost-effective dissemination of good

practices; (v) increased resilience and crisis-response capacity; (vi) a stronger collective voice

for PES in EU policy processes; and (vii) enhanced collaboration within the employment

ecosystem.

Discontinuing the PES Decision would have significant negative consequences, including

the loss of structured EU-level cooperation, slower innovation and reform, widening disparities

between PES, reduced policy coherence, and weaker collective capacity to respond to future

labour market shocks. This would particularly impact areas where the PES Network’s activities

have been a major accelerator of reform - such as digitalisation, the integration of AI, employer

services and performance management.

2.5. Relevance

The objectives of the amended PES Decision remained relevant and flexible to adapt to

new needs and challenges throughout the 2021–2025 period. In this context, the PES

Network demonstrated a strong capacity to adapt to changing contexts, adjusting its activities

to respond to new challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression

against Ukraine.

Moreover, the amended PES Decision continued to respond to persistent and emerging

labour market challenges, including labour and skills shortages, as well as digitalisation and

the green transition. The ongoing relevance of the Decision’s general and specific objectives

relating to cooperation and mutual learning was ensured by: (i) implementing activities directly

focusing on these challenges; (ii) mainstreaming key issues across broader activities; and (iii)

fostering participatory approaches to developing work programmes and strategic documents

that allow for the introduction of new thematic priorities as relevant.

7

3. LESSONS LEARNED

Overall, the findings confirm a high degree of continuity with the results of the 2019 evaluation,

while pointing to clear improvements in cooperation, coherence and the maturity of the

Network. The PES Network has consolidated its role, increased its relevance and impact over

time, and is highly valued by both members and external stakeholders.

The evaluation of the PES Network’s activities provides several important lessons that can

guide its future strategic direction.

- Increasing participation through cost-effective solutions. The PES Network provides a

dynamic range of strategically interlinked activities supporting PES modernisation and

adaptation to new trends and challenges. New technologies may increasingly provide cost-

effective solutions for the delivery of activities (online meetings) and the dissemination of

deliverables (e.g. through dynamic search functions on knowledge-sharing platforms, or

automatic translation).

- Enhancing the visibility of Benchlearning outcomes.There is scope to increase the

visibility of Benchlearning outcomes by disseminating them beyond the Network. Greater

access to Benchlearning outcomes could increase synergies between the work of the

Network, that of other labour market stakeholders, and EU policies. Dissemination efforts

should, however, take into account the need to ensure Benchlearning remains a secure space

for PES to share sensitive information.

- Stepping up operational cooperation on strategic priorities. The PES Network has done

extensive work to foster the take-up of common strategic approaches and tools. There is

scope to continue to support further operational cooperation between PES on strategic

priorities, such as digitalisation and performance measurement frameworks. This could

entail drawing on proven methods and pulling together resources for pilots and innovation,

building on examples of creating common definitions and approaches, for instance on green

skills and jobs, and on measuring labour shortages7. While not explicitly mentioned in the

PES Decision, this type of cooperation is fully aligned with the Network’s objectives, and

would represent a step forward in the Network’s decade-long efforts to enhance

cooperation and mutual learning among PES.

- Strengthening and prioritising contributions to EU policymaking. The PES Network

has increased its efforts to contribute to EU policymaking, with the possibility to further

broaden its sphere of contributions. The Network is consulted on several EU employment

policies or the employment aspects of broader policy areas, including by collaborating with

existing structures (e.g. EMCO). Further opportunities to contribute to policy processes and

to strengthen the Network’s visibility as a policy actor with significant implementation

expertise could be sought, including as regards its contribution to the European Semester

and activation of those facing significant barriers to enter the labour force. However, this

7 For further information, please refer to Box 4 of the Staff Working Document.

8

should be assessed in light of available resources as well as policy priorities, and

determined in consultation with PES.

- Fostering further synergies with EU initiatives in the field of labour mobility. The PES

Network has stepped up its efforts to contribute to a wide range of policy areas, with the

possibility to further build on its role as a key contact point and a space for information

exchange on EU employment policies. As the Network has matured further and new

challenges have emerged, there is scope for further synergies in the field of labour mobility

– for example with labour mobility actors in fields of direct relevance to PES. This

concerns, for instance, support to mobile workers via EURES, exchange of data and

information in case of export of unemployment benefits, in the context of the European

Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI), and career guidance and skills

assessment provided through Europass.

- Developing a systematic monitoring framework and key performance indicators. To

date, monitoring efforts have focused primarily on gathering feedback on individual

activities and collecting data on engagement and reach in relation to communication

outputs. Monitoring of the impact of work programme implementation has varied over

time. A more systematic internal process or framework, based on key performance

indicators, to systematically monitor the performance of the Network itself is currently

lacking. Such framework could be developed by the Network and its members to measure

more systematically results of PES Network activities over time, supporting necessary

adjustments for continued impact and cost-effectiveness. Building on monitoring activities

developed so far, it would provide a more consistent and consolidated approach, keeping

the administrative and reporting burden to the minimum necessary.

- More systematic knowledge sharing and joint initiatives with partners. The PES

Network has increased its cooperation with and outreach to other labour market

stakeholders over time, with scope to further strengthen collaboration. This could entail

identifying common priorities, more systematic knowledge sharing, developing joint

initiatives and increasing participation in relevant committees and events, based on the

availability of human and financial resources.

- Potential for further efficiency gains. The PES Network is cost-effective, delivering a

wide range of support activities at a relatively modest cost. There is, however, some limited

scope for further efficiencies, for example by increasing the use of digital tools and

developing a unified knowledge hub (streamlining the different platforms used for

document sharing, co-creation and repositories), increasing operational cooperation or

streamlining decision-making processes. Further efficiencies could be gained by fostering

stronger synergies with relevant EU agencies (e.g. Eurofound, Cedefop, the European

Labour Authority, the European Training Foundation) and contributing to their work, thus

reducing the number of PES Network studies and publications and mitigating the risk of

duplication. In addition, adjusting the frequency of reporting by the Network would

simplify reporting processes and reduce the administrative burden related to reporting.

9

- Building PES capacity and making best use of EU funding. The PES Network promotes

synergies with EU funding mechanisms (e.g. the European Social Fund +, the Technical

Support Instrument, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Just Transition Fund). There

is scope to further support PES in building their capacity and implementing PES reforms,

notably by making the best possible use of available EU funding, including in the context

of the post-2027 multiannual financial framework.

- Ensuring continuity. All those consulted confirmed the ongoing need for the PES

Network. Following two consecutive positive evaluations, discontinuation of the PES

Decision would represent a significant loss to EU-level cooperation, leading to slower

innovation and reforms, widening disparities between PES, and reduced policy coherence.

The PES Decision provides a robust and flexible framework to support PES in addressing

current and future challenges and labour market transformations, aligning with wider and

emerging EU policy priorities. Given the Network’s limited budget and the well-

established role of PES as key labour market players, ensuring the greater long-term

stability of the Network would contribute to administrative simplification, by removing the

need for periodic renewal of an established and well-functioning structure. At the same

time, as summarised above, there is scope for further improvement of the Decision through

targeted amendments.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 22.10.2026 SWD(2026) 318 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE

COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Evaluation on the application of Decision No 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation

between Public Employment Services

{COM(2026) 564 final}

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Methodology, limitations and robustness ............................................................................................. 1

2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 3

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives .................................................................. 3

2.2 Points of comparison ............................................................................................................................ 5

3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 5

3.1. Labour market trends: record-high employment, low long-term unemployment and persistent

labour market challenges ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2. Public Employment Services: Recent developments ............................................................. 7

3.3 The PES Network over 2021-2025 ..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Main activities and evolution ................................................................................................... 12

3.3.2 Thematic focus........................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3 PES performance and modernisation: outcomes from Benchlearning ................................ 17

3.4 Link with EU instruments broader policy framework.......................................................... 19

3.4.1 PES use of EU Funds ................................................................................................................ 19

3.4.2 Contribution to EU policy initiatives ....................................................................................... 20

4. EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 23

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ................................................................. 23

4.1.1 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................. 23

4.1.2 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.3 Coherence .................................................................................................................................. 41

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? (EU added value) ............................ 49

4.2.1 Continued need for EU level action (EQ10) ............................................................................ 49

4.2.2 Impact of discontinuing the PES Decision (EQ11 and EQ12) ............................................... 51

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? ........................................................................................................ 52

4.3.1 Relevance ................................................................................................................................... 52

5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 57

5.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 57

5.2 Lessons learned / Suggestions for improvement .................................................................. 57

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 59

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 60

1.Task 0: Inception ................................................................................................................................... 60

1.1 Preliminary Literature Review ................................................................................................... 60

1.2 Scoping Interviews and training session .................................................................................... 62

1.3 Refinement of methodology and task preparation .................................................................... 63

2.Task 1: Mapping .................................................................................................................................... 63

2.1 Mapping of PES Network inputs, activities, outputs results and impacts .............................. 64

2.2 Mapping of other data relevant to the work and objectives of the PES Network .................. 68

3.Task 2: Country Case Studies................................................................................................................ 70

4.Task 3: Stakeholder consultations ......................................................................................................... 76

4.1 Consultation Strategy .................................................................................................................. 76

4.2 Stakeholder interviews ................................................................................................................ 77

4.3 Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 79

4.4 Workshops .................................................................................................................................... 80

4.5 Virtual Policy Delphi ................................................................................................................... 81

5.Task 4: Cost-effectiveness analysis. ...................................................................................................... 81

6.Task 5: Answering the evaluation questions ......................................................................................... 83

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................... 84

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 91

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................. 100

1. Overview of consultation activities .................................................................................................... 100

1.1 Call for evidence ......................................................................................................................... 100

1.2 Interviews.................................................................................................................................... 101

1.3 Targeted surveys ........................................................................................................................ 102

1.4 Workshops .................................................................................................................................. 102

1.5 Case study interviews ................................................................................................................. 102

1.6 Virtual Policy Delphi ................................................................................................................. 104

2. Methodology and tools used for data processing ............................................................... 105

3. Overview of results of consultation activities .................................................................... 106

3.1 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 106

3.2 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 108

3.3 Coherence ................................................................................................................................... 108

3.4 EU added value .......................................................................................................................... 109

3.5 Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 110

ANNEX VI. CHANGES IN THE PES DECISION ..................................................................... 112

ANNEX VII. BENCHLEARNING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND RESULTS ..... 114

ANNEX VIII: EXAMPLES OF PES NETWORK’S IMPACT ................................................... 120

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

AFEPA Advisers for European PES Affairs

AI Artificial Intelligence

ALMP Active Labour Market Policy

CEA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cedefop European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

CIRCAB Communication and Information Resource Centre for

Administrations, Businesses and Citizens

DG EMPL Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

EIGE European Institute for Gender Equality

ELA European Labour Authority

EMCOEU Employment Committee European Union

ESCO European Skills, Competences, and Occupations

ESF+ European Social Fund Plus

ETF European Training Foundation

ETUC European Trade Union Confederation

EU European Union

EURES1 European Employment Services

ILO International Labour Organisation

MAP Mutual Assistance Project

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PES Public Employment Services

RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility

SPC Social Protection Committee

1 EURES is the Network of Public Employment Services for facilitating the free movement of workers. More

information in EURES.

TLD Thematic Learning Dialogue

TRW Thematic Review Workshop

TSI Technical Support Instrument

WAPES World Association of Public Employment Services

WEC World Employment Confederation

WG Working Group

LTU Long-term unemployment

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The European Network of Public Employment Services (PES Network) was established in

2014 by Decision No 573/2014/EU (hereafter ‘the 2014 PES Decision’)2 to ‘encourage

cooperation (…) between Member States in the field of employment, within the areas of

PES responsibility, in order to contribute to the implementation of the Union’s

employment policies. The Network’s mandate was extended until 31 December 2027 with

the amended Decision No 573/2014/EU (‘the 2020 PES Decision’).3

Article 10 of the 2020 PES Decision requires the Commission to submit an evaluation

report by 30 September 2026. This evaluation assessed the state of play and degree of

implementation of the PES Decision, as well as the extent to which the Network has

fulfilled its legal obligations and achieved its objectives. It provides an analysis of the five

mandatory evaluation criteria, in line with the Commission's Better Regulation guidelines4:

effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value. Based on the

assessment of each criterion, the evaluation draws overall conclusions and lessons learned.

The evaluation covers the 27 EU Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway,

aligning with the Network’s geographical scope. It assesses the implementation of PES

Network Decision 573/2014/EU—as amended by Decision (EU) 2020/1782—over the

period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 20255.

1.2 Methodology, limitations and robustness

This Staff Working Document draws on evidence from an evaluation study commissioned

to an external contractor (Ecorys), initiated in June 2025 and conducted over twelve

months6. Evidence has been collected from several sources combining appropriate

measures for enhancing the robustness of results. Both quantitative and qualitative

methods were used, including desk based research and literature review; mapping of

inputs, outputs, results and impacts of the PES Network; country case studies (BG, DE,

ES, FI, LT, SI), broad stakeholder consultations (EU-level interviews, two targeted surveys

to Advisers for European PES affairs (AFEPA) and two workshops with AFEPAs and

Heads of PES)7. Additional desk research was conducted, drawing particularly on key data

2 Decision No 573/2014/EU 3 Decision (EU) 2020/1782 4 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox 5 The cut-off date was set to maximise the data availability for the evaluation. Secondary sources used in

the evaluation can have different cut-off dates. 6 For further details of the evaluation study please see Study supporting the evaluation of Decision

573/2014EU as amended by Decision (EU) 2020/1782 on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES), for consulting the procedural information please see ANNEX I. 7 Unless specified otherwise, the source of Boxes, Tables and Figures used in this SWD is: Study supporting

the evaluation of Decision 573/2014EU as amended by Decision (EU) 2020/1782 on enhanced

cooperation between Public Employment Services (PES), Ecorys for the European Commission, 2026.

2

from the PES Capacity Reports and the outcomes of Benchlearning activities. When

interpreting the results, the following main limitations should be considered8.

(1) Capturing PES clients’ views: Consulting representatives from organisations

representing PES clients posed challenges, due to their sometimes-limited knowledge of

the Network. Mitigation measures included: targeted interviews focused on specific

activities involving these organizations; collaboration with PES to identify clients’

representatives with a long-standing partnership and knowledge of the PES Network.

(2) Avoiding bias in consultation activities by those with a stake in the future of the

PES Network: Guided by the PES Network’s strategic focus and scope, the evaluation

drew on insights from key stakeholders, namely, decision-makers and implementers within

the PES and their partners, who possess firsthand knowledge of its operations and impact.

This targeted approach ensured an evidence-based assessment grounded in the

perspectives of those best placed to observe the Network’s impact. The fact that the

Network’s primary target groups are PES themselves, and its relatively limited external

visibility imply that a significant proportion of the evidence emanates from sources with

first-hand knowledge within PES. This was mitigated by triangulating the data gathered

from PES sources with data gathered from external stakeholders and cross-referenced with

the data from the desk research. Consultees were made aware of the anonymity of the

information provided. A balanced perspective was achieved by engaging a wide range of

stakeholders. The interview programme engaged 38 consultees, primarily external to the

Network. Of the 47 stakeholders consulted for the country case studies, 33 were external

to the Network.

(3) Collecting quantitative data on cost: While all PES provided qualitative insights on

the costs and benefits of their engagement in the PES Network, time and resources invested

in Network activities are not always systematically tracked in quantitative terms. To

mitigate this, the evaluation utilised all available financial data and complemented the

analysis with qualitative data.

(4) Limited availability of secondary evidence on the results and impact of the

implementation of the PES Decision, likely due to the PES Network’s specific remit and

membership. Extensive desk research was performed, and a diverse range of stakeholders

were consulted to triangulate the evidence gathered.

(5) Lack of systematic monitoring framework: While event satisfaction surveys and

biannual impact surveys on mutual learning activities are conducted, no systematic

monitoring framework assesses the implementation of activities and objectives expressed

in the PES Decision. In the absence of comparable performance data, information was

collected via desk research, as well as stakeholder consultations. To isolate impacts

specific to the evaluation period, research tools included targeted questions on outcomes

directly attributable to the application of the 2020 Decision.

8 Annex II presents in more details the methodology applied, its robustness and limitations.

3

2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

PES Decision: objectives and activities

The PES Network was formally established in 20149. Until then, the Heads of Public

Employment Services Network had provided an informal avenue for EU PES to exchange

and cooperate. The objective of the PES Network was to address the need for more

effective collaboration between PES and provide a more formal platform to compare

performance at EU level, identify good practices and establish a mutual learning system to

promote and facilitate the development of more innovative, evidence-based employment

policies in line with EU-level priorities.

Originally covering a six-year period (2014-2020), Decision 573/2014/EU was amended

in 2020 following an evaluation10, by Decision (EU) 2020/178211. The following

amendments were introduced during the revision:

Extending the mandate of the PES Network until 31 December 2027 (Article 1).

Increased focus on inclusion and support for vulnerable groups: amending the

objectives (Article 3) to include a specific mention of supporting people with disabilities

and those facing multiple discrimination, gender equality and ‘inclusiveness’ of labour

markets. References were included to the Network’s role in contributing to ‘reducing

unemployment for all age, gender and vulnerable groups’ and in promoting the sharing of

best practices to support vulnerable groups to enter and remain in the labour market

(Article 4).

Promoting sustainable and inclusive growth: stipulating support to the implementation

of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), the EU Green Deal and the UN Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) among the aims of the Network, as well as the inclusion

measures to support jobseekers (e.g. career counselling and training) (Article 3).

Enhancing cooperation with the broader community of labour market stakeholders:

adding explicit reference to collaboration with EU agencies, equality bodies, vocational

training organisations, as well as PES from third countries (Article 5). A call to step up its

cooperation with the Employment Committee was included (Article 6).

Based on the PES Decision, the following intervention logic was developed, providing a

framework for a standardised approach to the evaluation.

9 Decision No 573/2014/EU 10Study supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES). 11 Decision (EU) 2020/1782 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020

amending Decision No 573/2014/EU

4

Figure 1. Intervention logic of the 2020 PES Decision

5

2.2 Points of comparison

To capture the changes generated over time by the PES Decision, the evaluation compares

performance against a set of points of comparison that differ across evaluation criteria, due

to data availability with the situation prior to the 2020 Decision. For assessing

effectiveness and efficiency, the situation prior to 2020 is the main point of comparison.

For coherence, the evaluation examines the coherence with other initiatives over the

evaluation period. For relevance, the evaluation assesses the extent to which the Decision

was relevant throughout the evaluation period and will continue to be relevant in the future.

For EU added value, the evaluation assesses how the situation could have been expected

to evolve in the absence of the 2020 PES Decision. Table 1 provides an overview of the

key points of comparison used for each criterion. The specific points of comparison

are stated in the findings for each criterion (section 4, Evaluation findings).

Table 1: Key points of comparison per evaluation criterion

Criterion Key point(s) of comparison

Effectiveness

Situation prior to the implementation of the 2020 PES Decision (degree of

effectiveness identified in the 2019 evaluation of the PES Decision); No./type of

exchange/knowledge-building activities/outputs and any results/impacts between PES

prior to 2020; PES performance indicators prior to 2020

Efficiency

Situation prior to the implementation of the 2020 PES Decision: degree of efficiency

identified in the 2019 evaluation of the PES Decision (including any quantitative

benchmarks where possible); Stakeholder views on degree of efficiency prior to 2020

Coherence

Degree of coherence and complementarity with other national and EU-level initiatives

throughout the evaluation period; Objectives and scope of other relevant policies and

initiatives at EU, international and national level; Degree of coherence and

complementarity identified in the 2019 evaluation of the PES Decision

EU added value

Projection of how the situation could have been expected to evolve in the absence of

the PES Decision; Situation prior to the implementation of the 2020 PES Decision

(degree of EU added value identified in the 2019 evaluation of the PES Decision)

Relevance

Ongoing and future relevance to needs/problems over the evaluation period and in the

future; Situation prior to the implementation of the 2020 PES Decision (degree of

relevance identified in the 2019 evaluation of the PES Decision)

For all comparisons, the evaluation takes into account changes in contextual factors (e.g.

labour market situation). Particular attention is paid to changes in the 2020 PES Decision

(compared to the 2014 Decision) to assess any impacts of these changes. For each point of

comparison, the evaluation examines the degree to which any change can be attributed to

the PES Decision(s) and state limitations/caveats.

3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?

This section starts by presenting labour market trends and related developments in PES

over 2021-2025, before introducing the activities of the PES Network, set within its

broader EU policy context.

6

3.1. Labour market trends: record-high employment, low long-term unemployment

and persistent labour market challenges

During the evaluation period, key labour market indicators showed steady

improvement, signalling a relatively rapid recovery from the impact of COVID-19. The

employment rate (on average in the EU and for those aged 20-6412, as for the rest of

indicators presented in this paragraph) grew steadily from 73.1% in 2021 to 76.1% in

202513, while the labour market participation rate peaked at 80.4%14 in 2024. The

unemployment rate continued to decline, falling from 6.9% in 2021 to 6% in 202515.

Similarly, the long-term unemployment (LTU) rate, decreased by over 1 percentage point,

reaching 1.9% in 202516. Data from the PES Benchlearning data collection17 reflect these

overall positive trends.After a rise due to the impact of the pandemic in 2020, the number

of unemployed jobseekers registered with PES decreased from 2021 to 2024, going from

23.2 to 21.2 million18, in line with an overall downward trend since 201019. Transitions into

employment have generally become faster between 2021-2025. For example, the average

rate of unemployed jobseekers reintegrated into employment within 6 months increased by

over 10 percentage points, from 56% in 2021 to over 67% in 202420, surpassing pre-

pandemic levels. Progress has, however, been uneven across EU Member States. In some

countries, the unemployment rate remained steadily above the EU average (e.g. EL, ES,

FI, FR, IT)21. A minority of countries (CZ, DK, DE, EE, FI, SE) have also seen a growth

in unemployment at the end of the evaluation period.

The overall positive trends mask some persistent challenges for specific cohorts of the

working-age population. Employment outcomes continued to be affected by personal

characteristics such as age, gender, and education level22. The rate of young people neither

in employment nor in education and training (NEETs), while decreasing, remained high

(from 10.8% in 2021 to 9% in 2025 for those aged 15-24)23. The gender employment gap

remained large, standing at 9,6 percentage points24. Educational attainment continued to

affect employment, with people with a high level of education (ISCED 5-8) achieving

much higher employment rates25. Other vulnerable groups also continued to face

challenges: the EU disability employment gap was 24,2% in 202526, while people with a

migrant background remained over-represented among those with overqualification, in

12Indicators use the standard Eurostat age group for each series. 13Eurostat Employment annual statistics; Eurostat employment news 14Latest available in that extraction: Eurostat lfsa_argan dataset 15Eurostat unemployment rate in 2025 16Eurostat unemployment news; Eurostat long-term unemployment article 17Administrative data collected annually in the PES Network. 18The decline has stalled since 2022, and 2024 has a break in series. 19Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 20Ibid 21 Unemployment by sex and age - annual data 22Employment - annual statistics 23edat_lfse_20 - Eurostat NEET news; Eurostat NEET statistics article 24Eurostat Employment annual statistics 25 In 2025, Eurostat reports employment rates of 86.8% for people with high education, 75.1% for medium

education and 58.2% for low education among ages 20-64. 26 disability employment gap by level of activity limitation and sex

7

temporary work, in-work poverty, low-wage sectors or facing employment gaps27.

Transitions into employment remained longer for older, less educated, and to a lesser

extent female unemployed jobseekers28. LTU persons continued to face additional barriers

in entering the labour market. While the overarching LTU rate in the EU improved in 2021-

2025, the share of LTU jobseekers reintegrated into employment as a percentage of the

number of LTU persons registered with PES peaked in 2021 (at 4.3%), but has since been

decreasing, to only 3.5% in 202329.

The ongoing digital and green transition also continued to rapidly reshape the world of

work, with new professions emerging, existing roles being reshaped, and the demand for

new skills on the rise. The level of ‘digitalness’ remained high, with at least 20% of skills

needed across occupations requiring digital competences30. In 2021, 54% of individuals in

the EU had basic digital skills, with this share rising to 60% in 2025. Yet only 29% of them

had above-basic digital skills in 2025.31 Europe’s efforts to achieve climate neutrality also

contributed to profound changes in employment32. Online job advertisements point to

rising demand for green skills, with green pervasiveness33 steadily increasing across sectors

between 2021 and 2024 (e.g. from 1.1% to 4.5% in the construction sector), requiring more

workers to up- and reskill. The share of job vacancies in clean tech and manufacturing in

the EU doubled in between 2019-202334; yet, in 2023, 25% of companies reported skills

shortages in these areas, as reported in the 2024 Draghi report35. Moreover, Russia’s war

of aggression against Ukraine had important implications for European labour markets and

for PES. The influx of displaced persons from Ukraine under the EU Temporary Protection

Directive36 created an urgent need for labour market integration. On 30 April 2026, 4.37

million non-EU citizens fleeing Ukraine under temporary protection were identified in the

EU. Germany, Poland and Czechia hosted the largest numbers. 37.

3.2. Public Employment Services: Recent developments

Public Employment Services are the main public agencies implementing employment

policies that facilitate labour market integration of jobseekers, helping to match supply and

demand in the labour market. They play a key role in ensuring the successful

implementation of relevant EU policy initiatives in the field of employment, thereby

contributing to the Union’s competitiveness. Their structures vary by country, with

differences in legal status, organisational setup, degree of independence from government

27 Joint Employment Report 2026; Commission migration and EU labour market paper 28 Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 29 Ibid. 30 This value is based online-job-ad evidence only. Cedefop digitalness dashboard; Cedefop Skills-OVATE 31 Eurostat Skills for the digital age; Digital Decade targets article; Eurostat isoc_sk_dskl_i21. 32 Tracking the green transition in labour markets. 33 Cedefop, Greenness and green pervasiveness dashboard 34 The future of European competitiveness: A competitiveness strategy for Europe. 35 Ibid. 36 Council Directive 2001/55/EC. 37 Eurostat temporary protection monthly statistics; Eurostat news release

8

and distribution of tasks across administrative levels (Figure 2). PES’ legal status remained

broadly stable over the evaluation period, with a few exceptions (including FI, IT)38.

Figure 2. The legal statuses of PES

Source: Trends in PES: Assessment report on PES capacity 2025, Trends in PES: Insights from the 2025

Capacity Report - Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

The services provided by PES to both jobseekers and employers include matching and

support for job search, counselling, vocational guidance, support to placement, upskilling

and reskilling, support to geographic and occupational mobility, labour market

information, with variations across countries (Figure 3). In addition, PES are

also frequently in charge of unemployment benefits and related activation measures (e.g.

job-search obligations, training, reintegration support for mobile workers). As the

designated competent institutions for unemployment benefits, they also contribute to the

export of unemployment benefits across borders in the context of EU social security

coordination rules.

Figure 3: PES responsibility by tasks and activities

38 PES Capacity Report 2021, p.14.

9

Source: Trends in PES: Assessment report on PES capacity 2025, Trends in PES: Insights from the 2025

Capacity Report - Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Note: Figure 3 provides an overview of the current services offered by the PESs and whether these services

are the solely the responsibility of PES or shared with other partners. Individual paths refer to individualised

assistance and follow-up of unemployed towards a planned path to sustainable employment. ALMPs refer to

Active Labour Market Policies. ESF refers to the European Social Fund. Layoff refers to having measures

for addressing a discharge of workers because of economic conditions or labour shortages.

While their core responsibilities showed little change between 2021 and 202539, PES

adapted their services in response to a tighter labour market:

• Tackling long-term challenges and structural inequalities - PES increasingly

focused on long-term challenges and structural inequalities, with services targeting

vulnerable groups (e.g. LTUs, people with disabilities, youth, 55+ workers, displaced

persons from Ukraine and migrants), or covering these groups under specific

objectives. In 2023, all PES set strategies and targets to ease labour market access for

the most vulnerable groups, and in 2024 around 80% of PES worked with employers

with the specific aim of supporting disadvantaged groups40.

• Supporting new types of customers - While registered jobseekers remain their core

target groups, PES increased efforts to provide services towards employed clients at

risk of losing their job41 and supporting those outside the labour force42. There has been

increasing outreach and preventive measures to support employees at risk of being

39PES Capacity Report 2021p.13, Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 40Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 41Early intervention and job-to-job transitions - The evolving role of PES 42Hidden potential - Publications Office of the EU

10

made redundant and reaching out to workers in sectors affected by the twin transition

(e.g. counselling and career advice)43. By 2023, over 70% of PES had launched

services to help those outside the labour force find work44. Following Russia’s war of

aggression on Ukraine, PES swiftly ramped up their efforts to support the labour

market integration of persons displaced, with over 350.000 Ukrainians registering with

PES between 2022 and 202345.

• Growing focus on skills - PES have played an increasing role in skills assessment,

supporting up and reskilling, informing both jobseekers and employers about existing

and emerging skills gaps, and anticipating future skills needs. By 2025, over 80% of

PES were conducting skills assessments, and 91% provided upskilling and reskilling

opportunities for the unemployed. They have also made an increasing use of skills

intelligence tools to improve labour market diagnosis.

• Addressing labour shortages - Over two-thirds of PES (66%, 21/32) now offer an

expanded range of updated services to employers to tackle shortages, up from 2023.

All but one PES (31/32) have implemented at least one of nine key measures46

(primarily enhancing employer outreach and collaboration), while 19% (6/32) have

adopted the full set of nine, underlining a comprehensive response to workforce

challenges. PES are also increasingly focusing on recruiting talent from abroad47.

• Supporting the twin digital and green transition - The share of PES tackling labour

shortages related to digital and green skills increased (to almost 70% in 2024), with

several providing services to individuals with low digital skills (e.g. foundational and

advanced/sector-specific digital skills training, certification schemes). Between 2021

and 2024, at least 12 PES formulated green transition strategies, implementing

measures to tackle the impacts of greener labour markets (upskilling/reskilling,

defining and mapping green skills, and cooperating with employers), or mainstreaming

the green transition into their activities48.

• Accelerated digital transformation – Post-pandemic years have seen a clear shift

towards the digitalisation of core PES services. By 2023, all PES had either initiated

or further developed digital strategies and over two-thirds had introduced digital or

hybrid services to jobseekers and employers49. By 2025, digital tools were commonly

used for jobseeker registration, vacancy matching, and satisfaction monitoring, while

more personalised services – such as career guidance and individual action plans –

43Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 44Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES capacity – 2023. 45See Public Employment Services support to persons displaced from Ukraine: latest developments -

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion & Public Employment Services step up support to persons

displaced from Ukraine: Latest developments - Employment, Social Affairs and

Inclusionhttps://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/public-employment-services-step-support-

persons-displaced-ukraine-latest-developments-2023-03-15_en 46 Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 pg. 80. 47 How Public Employment Services Can Help Attract Skilled Talent from Third Countries 48 https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=28034&langId=en 49Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES capacity – 2023.

11

often still relied on in-person interaction (See Figure 4). 60% of PES (19 out of 32)

used Artificial Intelligence (AI), for example to assist profiling and skills-based

matching.

Figure 4. Extent to which services to jobseekers are digitalised across the 32 PES

Source: Trends in PES: Assessment report on PES capacity 2025

Despite a substantial blip during the COVID-19 crisis, PES expenditure measured in

constant prices has largely been in decline since 2010 and throughout the evaluation period,

reaching a new low in 2023, before rising slightly. In 2024, PES expenditure was 6.2%

higher than in 2023, primarily as a result of increased spending on social benefits (mostly

unemployment benefits).

Figure 5. PES expenditure, PES Network, 2010-2024 (index 2010=100)

Source: Trends in PES: Assessment report on PES capacity 2025

12

3.3 The PES Network over 2021-2025

This section presents the PES Network’s organisation and key activities in the field of

governance, Benchlearning and mutual learning, highlighting key developments over

2021-2025. Contributions to EU policies are presented in the following section.

3.3.1 Main activities and evolution

Governance and organisation

The Network’s main governing body is a Board, composed of Heads of PES from each

member country and representatives from the Commission. The Employment Committee

representative holds observer status. The Board meets twice a year in the Member State

holding the EU Presidency, setting the strategic direction of the Network, discussing labour

market developments and monitoring the work programme’s implementation. Advisors for

European PES Affairs (AFEPAs), appointed in all participating PES, support and prepare

the decision-making process. During the evaluation period, the Network was led by Chairs

from Austria (2019-2023), Belgium-Brussels Region (2023-2025), and Greece (2025),

with first Vice-Chairs from Greece (2020–2023) and Lithuania (2024–2025).

Liechtenstein joined as a new member in 2021.

The Network’s Secretariat is hosted by the Commission’s Directorate-General for

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Over the evaluation period, two annual and two

biannual work programmes were delivered, with the last one set to be completed in 2026.

In 2023, the Network transitioned to a multiannual work programme (updated annually) to

streamline activities and rationalise planning. Outcomes are detailed in the Network’s

annual reports, which are submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The

Network itself is supported by funding from the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+, EaSI

strand), covering both operational and administrative costs.

Benchlearning50

Since its inception, the PES Network has supported its members across Europe to improve

their performance by comparing themselves with peer PES via qualitative and quantitative

assessments. The aim is to support each PES in improving its capacity and performance

through evidence-based comparisons and peer-driven learning.

Quantitative benchmarking is the data-driven component of the Benchlearning

process. PES administrative data is collected each year to provide the eight mandatory

benchmarking indicators listed in the Annex to the Decision. Over the evaluation period,

efforts focused on identifying overlaps and aligning more closely with the EU Labour

Market Policy (LMP) database. Updated guidelines were produced to improved data

quality and country fiches were introduced to better support the qualitative assessments.

These changes aimed to simplify reporting requirements, while strengthening the

reliability and relevance of PES data.

50The concept of Benchlearning is defined in Article 2 of the PES Decision as ‘the process of creating a

systematic and integrated link between benchmarking and mutual learning activities (…)’. In practice, it

has been used to refer to qualitative and quantitative benchmarking defined in the PES Decision annex.

13

Through qualitative benchmarking, members undergo an individual assessment by a

team of assessors during an on-site visit. Qualitative assessments are based on a self-

assessment, building on a common ‘Excellence model’51. Areas of qualitative

benchmarkinglisted in the Annex to the PES Decision include: 1. Strategic performance

management; 2. Design of operational processes such as effective channelling and

profiling of jobseekers and tailored use of active labour market instruments; 3. Sustainable

activation and management of transitions; 4. Relations to employers; 5. Evidence-based

design and implementation of PES services; 6. Effective management of partnerships with

stakeholders; 7. Allocation of PES resources.

Thematic Learning Dialogues (TLDs), a format introduced in 2019, conclude each cycle

with a series of dedicated peer sessions that build on the outcomes of Benchlearning to

offer an in-depth, practical focus on key challenges identified during the cycle.

Figure 6. Benchlearning in practice

Source: ICF for the PES Secretariat/Commission

Between 2021 and 2025, the Network conducted two Benchlearning cycles, fully or

partially: the third cycle (2020–2023), which concluded in 2023 with nine TLDs, and the

fourth cycle (2024–2026), with TLDs still ongoing at the time of drafting the evaluation,

though all site visits were concluded. The methodology was adapted for each new cycle to

address emerging challenges. (See Annex VI for a comparative analysis of the Excellence

Model across cycles, highlighting both continuity and adaptations).

Mutual learning: events, reporting and analytical activities, communication

The Network organises a variety of mutual learning events to facilitate collaboration

and innovation, each with distinct objectives. Thematic Reviews, hosted by a PES, use

a 1.5-day format to examine specific topics, with a practical focus. Two formats offer a

deeper collaboration through multiple meetings: Working Groups (WGs), hosted by a PES,

enable ongoing collaboration, in-depth learning and practical cooperation on critical

topics, while Mutual Assistance Projects (MAPs) provide tailored peer-driven counselling

to one PES to address specific needs, often as a follow-up to Benchlearning

recommendations. While most events are internal, the annual stakeholder conference

51Benchlearning Manual

14

fosters strategic dialogue with external partners. Additionally, seminars provide focused

networking opportunities to explore thematic issues, linking them to policy developments.

A new online mutual learning format (‘Jour Fixe’) was introduced in 2021 to allow more

flexible and reactive exchanges in a more confidential context. Over the evaluation period,

the Network made an increasing use of webinars and online meetings. The practice,

developed for most of the activities in 2020 and 2021, was maintained to some extent in

the post- COVID period (see section on Efficiency).

Events are complemented by a wide range of reports and analytical activities. Thematic

papers summarise learning elements from events, while toolkits provide practical tips for

PES to integrate in their day-to-day work. PES Capacity Reports examine trends in PES,

with a focus on PES’ internal organisation and management, legal status, services, target

groups: a new, biannual format was launched in 2025. Other reports (often based on

surveys), studies and publications cover a wide range of topics relevant to the PES. Four

opinion papers were also published as inputs to EU policies.

During the evaluation period, the PES Network revamped its communications activities

and strategy, supported by WGs led successively by Estonia, Austria and Lithuania.

Streamlined news items highlight outputs, while the updated newsletter offers curated

content. A podcast series (launched in 2021) invites guests to explore PES practices and

trends while video content tailored for social media features interviews with PES

changemakers and stakeholders. A new Network’s LinkedIn Group was launched in 2024

and has reached over 1200 members, as a collaborative space for sharing news and

experiences. A fresh visual identity was adopted in 2025, and a modernised website serves

as the central hub for information.

15

Figure 7. Overview of PES Network outputs (per activities, 2021-2025)

Box 1. Address new challenges though multi-format responses

Between 2021 and 2025, the PES Network adapted its mutual learning activities, deploying a range of

formats to respond swiftly to post-pandemic recovery and new priorities.

Post-COVID recovery - The PES Network consolidated lessons from the pandemic through regular online

exchanges and targeted surveys. PES’ crisis responses were addressed via a focus group on short- time work

schemes, a study on recovery and a report on staff management in the ‘new normal’. This enabled rapid

documentation and dissemination of adaptable crisis-response policies.

Supporting persons displaced from Ukraine 52- In March and May 2022, in the weeks following the start

of Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine, the Network held online meetings with AFEPAs and Heads of

PES. In March, it launched a regular survey to monitor registrations of persons displaced with PES and

support provided to them53. In October, an exchange of practices was co-hosted by Germany and Sweden.

Additionally, Heads of PES engaged in discussions in June with the EU Commissioner for Jobs and Social

Rights, and in December with the Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Economy and the Commissioner’s Special

Adviser on the integration of people fleeing Ukraine. The following year, a WG on the Integration of

Displaced People and Refugees updated the PES Network’s ‘Key Considerations’, which were presented at

the Ukraine Solidarity Platform in October 2023.

Digital transformation - Since 2022, a dedicated WG (successively led by the Netherlands, Estonia and co-

led by France and Germany) has facilitated collaboration among PES IT staff to advance digital

transformation. The Network published a study on AI in PES, while a WG led by Norway developed a

Framework for ethical standards of AI in PES. The Network also focused on the impact of digitalisation on

(vulnerable) customers, through a toolkit and a thematic review hosted by Croatia.

Green transition - Specific activities included discussions at Board meetings, the publication of an opinion

paper and a study, as well as a thematic review hosted by Germany, which informed a toolkit to support

52More information on the joint response is provided in this news item and a specific podcast episode. 53Which inputted in the Commission Communication “Welcoming those fleeing war in Ukraine”

and Guidelines on labour market integration of persons displaced adopted in 2022

16

capacity building. The issue was also central to the WG on taxonomy, led by Sweden, which piloted a

common approach to defining green jobs. Additionally, the 2024 Benchlearning Manual incorporated a new

emphasis on sustainability, while the Network contributed to the Catalogue of Actions developed by the

dedicated WAPES G7 WG.

3.3.2 Thematic focus The PES Network produced 653 outputs across activity strands in 2021-2025 (see figure

7), reflecting the challenges on the EU labour market and in Member States during the

evaluation period which, in turn, impacted the work of PES.

Based on their thematic coverage (See Figure 8), these outputs can be broadly

categorised into two groups. The first group includes all PES Network outputs focusing

on how PES can tackle ongoing challenges in the labour market (4 categories: access to

the labour market for the most vulnerable (58% of outputs), better functioning and

inclusiveness of the labour market (52%), promoting skills development and lifelong

learning and identifying skills shortages for better supply-demand matching (49%) and

other labour market challenges). The second group of outputs focuses on improving PES

organisation and management (6 categories: ensuring quality service delivery(73% of

outputs), taking up innovation and digital solutions (10%), improving the overall

management of PES (49%), supporting employment (49%), PES staff development and

training (33%), and improving PES visibility and branding (13%)).

17

Figure 8. PES Network outputs contribution to thematic areas (2021-2025)

Notes: Analysis based on the areas covered in Art. 3 and 4 of the PES Decision and challenges affecting the

labour market over 2021-2025. Some outputs covered more than one of the thematic areas. Thematic areas

with fewer than 10% of contributions are not shown to maintain readability. These include “other” thematic

areas corresponding to respondents’ suggestions in the primary research undertaken as part of the case studies

and stakeholder consultation activities.

3.3.3 PES performance and modernisation: outcomes from Benchlearning

This section presents key trends and divides in PES performance emerging from the third

and fourth Benchlearning cycles.

3.3.3.1 Benchlearning Methodology: Evolution and Key Success Factors

The Benchlearning methodology has evolved through a history of continuous

improvement, underpinned by the collaborative contributions of all PES Network

members. The successful implementation of the first four cycles has been driven by several

key factors: trust and collaboration among participants, including both generalists and data

specialists; confidentiality in the handling of shared data and information; participant-led

programme, tailored to the needs and priorities of PES; high engagement levels, with 60

assessors from 24 PES trained and deployed for the fourth cycle in 2024.

3.3.3.2 Performance Trends: Third and Fourth Cycle Findings

PES exhibit varying performance levels, influenced by differences in governance,

leadership, operational processes, and external factors (e.g. labour market conditions,

legislative frameworks, and institutional constraints). While many of these elements lie

beyond PES control, they significantly shape outcomes.

The Benchlearning methodology has undergone progressive refinement, particularly

between the third and fourth cycles, to reflect shifts in the PES operational environment.

Although core elements remain consistent, updates to the Excellence Model—including

18

heightened maturity-level requirements—have affected scoring. Consequently, direct

comparisons between the third and fourth cycles should be made with caution, as

methodological adjustments may influence longitudinal trends.

An overview of outcomes of the third and fourth cycles is presented in Annex VI: it

provides a basis for assessing progress, though interpretations must account for contextual

disruptions (e.g., COVID-19).

Third Cycle: Progress and persistent challenges54

The third cycle revealed notable improvements across all assessed areas, largely

driven by PES responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Key advancements included:

performance management and digitalisation; support for vulnerable groups and labour

market stabilisation measures; enhanced collaboration with partners and greater team

autonomy.

However, structural challenges persisted, particularly in service digitalisation (uneven

adoption); quality management (often perceived as a compliance exercise rather than a tool

for improvement); strategic employer engagement (lack of proactive approaches); weak

evaluation culture within the Network. The pandemic’s impact on assessments results

remains difficult to quantify, given its potential influence on self-reporting content,

assessors’ judgments, and the shift to online assessments (a first for the programme). A

potential positive bias in scoring cannot be ruled out, as all PES demonstrated resilience in

maintaining service continuity during the crisis.

Fourth Cycle: emerging divides

Preliminary fourth-cycle findings suggest a polarisation in performance (see Annex

VI). While a small cohort of high-performing PES is nearing alignment with the global

Excellence Model, a second group remains at levels consistent with second- and third-

cycle outcomes, with limited progress in critical areas: performance management and

overall strategy; digitalisation (jobseeker/employer services); quality management,

monitoring, and evaluation; partnership governance and HR modernisation. While quality

management remains a Network-wide challenge, persistent issues from the third cycle—

such as digitalisation gaps, reactive employer engagement, and weak partnership

ecosystems—are concentrated in lower-performing PES.

To address these findings, 10 TLDs are being organised in 2026: seven section-specific

TLDs (e.g., section D “relations to employer”, with a focus on skills-based vacancy

matching) and three cross-cutting TLDs on impact and efficiency KPIs; customer-centric

service design; decentralised PES models. Lower-performing PES will be prioritised for

participation in TLDs aligned with their recommendation themes, ensuring targeted

capacity-building.

54 More information on the outcomes of the 3rd cycle, including distribution of organisational maturity by

PES, can be found here.

19

3.4 Link with EU instruments broader policy framework

3.4.1 PES use of EU Funds

EU funds play a pivotal role in supporting the modernisation of PES at both strategic and

operational levels and their delivery of ALMPs. Ensuring that these funds are used

effectively to drive meaningful reforms and advancements remains essential.

The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) finances a range of initiatives to support PES

services for employers and jobseekers (including via ALMPs, training for unemployed

persons, workers at risk of job loss, and outplacement schemes), as well as to foster PES

capacity (for instance through staff training, digitalisation of services, and the development

of skills intelligence and labour market forecasting). These interventions are primarily

programmed under the specific objectives on access to employment and modernising

labour market institutions. The majority of funding under the ESF+ is allocated under

shared management55 with the Member States. In 2025, two PES act as a managing

authority (in Belgium - Brussels Region in Finland) and 14 PES as an intermediate body56.

An estimated 14.5 billion euros of ESF+ funding is available for PES-related activities

during the 2021–2027 programming period, with national co-financing from Member

States bringing the total potential support to 21.4 billion euros57.

Box 2. Supporting the design of ESF + funded HR measures in Romania

A MAP in Romania was completed in August 2025. It provided the Romanian PES with support in

developing a modern HR strategy in the context of large-scale project supported by the ESF+. It showcased

approaches, tools, and techniques from Belgium (Wallonia), France and the Netherlands on topics including

resource allocation and recruitment processes; onboarding of new staff; skills development as well as

retention and engagement of staff. Source: Annual report 2025

Beyond ESF+, PES also use other EU funding instruments58. The Technical Support

Instrument (TSI) has been mobilised to foster innovative practices addressing long-term

unemployment, implement national skills frameworks, upgrade counselling services, and

develop new client management or integrated quality management systems. For instance,

it has supported the design of public employment services for economically inactive people

in Poland59, the reform and modernisation of the PES in Greece60, the implementation of

the Common Employment Services Portfolio and various ALMP reforms in Spain61 and

the modernisation and optimisation of public employment services in Bulgaria62.

55Shared management European Social Fund Plus 56Trends in PES: Insights from the 2025 Capacity Report - Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,

Annex1, pg.126. 57Source: European Commission, based on analysis of operational programmes capturing broad intentions

of managing authorities to invest in areas with PES relevance. 58An overview of PES use of EU funds can be found in the PES capacity report 2023 (section 8.3) 59Developing Public Employment Services for Economically Inactive People in Poland - Reforms and

Investments 60See Improving the delivery of public employment services - Reforms and Investments, Supporting Greece

to implement a National Skills Framework for Learning Pathways - Reforms and Investments & Reform

of the unemployment benefit system in Greece - Reforms and Investments 61See Strengthening the implementation of the Common Portfolio of Employment Services in Spain,

Strengthening policies and governance arrangements within the Spanish national employment system. 62 Optimising processes and services at Bulgaria’s National Employment Agency

20

Benchlearning recommendations developed in the context of the PES Network were used

in this context. A multi-country project is supporting PES from France and Greece on

improving PES effectiveness through AI and data solutions63.

The Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU)

has been used by PES in several Member States, to support various forms of active labour

market policies and COVID-19 mitigation measures. The Recovery and Resilience

Facility (RRF) has supported structural improvements, including upgrades to

infrastructure, performance management systems, and the modernisation and digitalisation

of PES services64. It also funds specific ALMPs, such as measures targeting vulnerable

groups, wage subsidies, green transition support, and business creation schemes. The Just

Transition Fund (JTF) complements these efforts by funding reskilling and other

measures in regions affected by the transition to a green economy.

3.4.2 Contribution to EU policy initiatives

The Network operates within the EU employment policy framework, supporting the

implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, particularly Principle 1 (education,

training, and lifelong learning) and Principle 4 (active support to employment).

Throughout 2021-2025, the Network was involved in the development, monitoring

and implementation of EU employment policies through both multilateral surveillance65

and complementary policy initiatives. In the context of the European Semester,

Employment Guideline 7 invites Member States to ‘make the best use of EU funding and

technical support to enhance the capacity of public employment services to provide timely

and tailor-made assistance to jobseekers, respond to current and future labour-market

needs, and implement performance-based management, supporting their capacity to use

data and digital technology’. In 2025, fifteen Country Specific Recommendation were

issued in relation to Active Labour Market Policies and activation. The PES Network has

taken part in yearly EMCO multilateral surveillance reviews on the issue. The Network

also indirectly supported the European Semester via Directorate-General Employment,

Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) geographical desks’ participation in

Benchlearning assessments and contributions by the PES Network Secretariat to relevant

Semester analysis. Country Reports frequently reference PES challenges, occasionally

highlighting the need to strengthen PES66.The Network also contributed to the

implementation and monitoring of specific EU policy initiatives. These include in

particular the Council Recommendation of 30 October 2020 on the reinforced Youth

Guarantee, Council Recommendation of 15 February 2016 on the integration of the LTU

into the labour market, as well as the employment-related aspects of the Council

63 See more information at Improving public employment services through Artificial Intelligence and data

solutions in France and Greece - Reforms and Investments 64 2025_RRF-Research-Study-on-Labour-Market.pdf 65 With PES Chairs attending six EMCO meetings in the evaluation period, often due to the Network’s

formal monitoring role. 66 PES were mentioned in 11, 13, 13, 19 and 25 Country Report issues as part of the European Semester in

2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 respectively. In the 2026 Spring Package, PES were mentioned in 25

Country Reports, 6 Recitals, and 3 Country Specific Recommendations (CY, RO, BG).

21

Recommendation on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion of 31 January

2023 and the European Skills Guarantee. It is also set to plays a role in supporting

disadvantaged groups’ access to the labour market in the context of the EU’s first Anti-

Poverty Strategy, adopted by the Commission on 6 May 2026 notably of persons with

disabilities, who will be supported by a strengthened Disability Employment Package, in

line with the Communication on Enhancing the Strategy for the rights of persons with

disabilities up to 2030

Over the course of the evaluation period, the Network broadened its focus to a wider

range of policy areas, responding to emerging or growing labour market challenges

(Table 2). This involved active engagement with the European Skills Agenda (particularly

the monitoring and implementation of Council Recommendations of 16 June 2022 on a

European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability (2022/C

243/02) and on individual learning accounts (2022/C 243/03)) and the Union of Skills. It

also supported the implementation of the Commission Action Plan on tackling labour and

skills shortages, adopted in March 2024. More broadly, the Network contributed to the

implementation of other Union policies. These include in particular labour mobility and

labour migration, employment-related aspects of the European Green Deal, support to

persons displaced from Ukraine, as well as enlargement policy.

Table 2: Selected examples of the Network’s contributions to EU policies

Policy areas Examples of contributions by the Network

Policy initiatives

in the field of

employment

- PES Network Memorandum to the Next European Leadership (2024)

- Opinion Paper on the European Pillar of Social Rights’ Action Plan

Review (2025)

Active support to

employment

(including for

vulnerable

groups)

- Report ‘Remuneration of Open-Market Traineeships’ (2021)

- Thematic paper on ‘Youth employment support’ (2021)

- Capacity Report 2021 and Capacity Report 2023 on the reinforced

Youth Guarantee, input to EMCO review

- Practitioner toolkit (2022, part of the Commission’s Disability

Employment Package)

- Capacity Report: Labour market training for the long-term

unemployed (2022), input to EMCO review

- Thematic paper on ‘New forms of PES service delivery’ (2023).

- Joint Minimum Income Network and AFEPA meeting (2024), input

to Minimum Income Report (2025)

- Targeted consultation on the Anti-Poverty Strategy (2025)

Education,

training and

lifelong learning,

and skills

- Conference on ‘Empowering the Workforce, Bridging the Skills Gap’,

input to an Opinion Paper on European Year of Skills (2023)

- Thematic paper ‘New forms of skills assessment and validation’

(2023)

- Capacity Report on Individual Learning Accounts (2025), input to

EMCO review

- Thematic paper on ‘Skills and labour market intelligence’ (2025).

22

- Targeted consultation on the Skill Portability Initiative and the VET

Strategy (2026)

- Taxonomy WG focusing on Skills Portability (2026)

Labour mobility

and migration

- Input in the Communication on “Welcoming those fleeing war

in Ukraine” and Guidelines on labour market integration of persons

displaced (2022)

- Talent Pool: Targeted consultation via ssurvey and discussion

at AFEPA meeting (2023)

- Key considerations on the ‘Labour market integration of displaced

people and refugees’ (2023)

- Thematic papers Attracting skilled labour from third countries (2024),

Fair Recruitment of Third Country Nationals (2026)

- Participation in the Implementation Dialogue on Fair Labour Mobility

with EVP Mînzatu (2025)

Green transition - Position Paper ‘A contribution to greening the labour market’ (2021).

- Toolkit on ‘Green Skills and Jobs: From commitment to practical

steps and strategies’ (2025, presented during EMCO review on Fair

Transition Council Recommendation)

- Taxonomy WG piloting a common approach to green jobs (2023-

2025)

Enlargement

policy

- Commission’s New Growth Plan for Western Balkans (2023) calls to

explore participation in PES Network activities

- PES Board decision to enhance cooperation with enlargement

countries (2024)

EU funding

programmes

- Capacity report with specific section assessing the use of EU funds by

PES (2023).

- PES Network Statement on the ESF+ (2025)

23

4. EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART)

The evaluation questions covering all evaluation criteria are presented in Annex III. 4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1.1 Effectiveness The amended PES Decision has been effective in strengthening cooperation, mutual

learning, and performance improvement across PES, particularly in enhancing

transparency through Benchlearning, facilitating the exchange and uptake of good

practices, piloting and fostering operational cooperation, and supporting improvements in

PES service delivery, digitalisation, and employer engagement. It has also fostered a strong

community among PES, enabling both formal and informal cooperation across Member

States and contributing increasingly to EU employment policy priorities. However, the

current limited dissemination of the outcomes of Benchlearning assessments, while

strengthening trust among participating PES, has partially affected the transparency of PES

performance towards stakeholders external to the Network.

4.1.1.1 Benchlearning activities’ success in assessing and achieving increased

transparency of PES performance (EQ1a)

Benchlearning activities have been successful in assessing PES performance and

encouraging organisational change. Benchlearning has facilitated a structured,

systematic, and comprehensive analysis of PES performance, contributing to creating a

cultural shift in PES towards self-reflection and internal cooperation. Benchlearning self-

assessments require different national PES departments and roles to cooperate, developing

a shared understanding of PES performance. All 31 respondents to the AFEPA survey

reported that Benchlearning activities have contributed to better identification of PES

development areas to a large (21 respondents) or some (10 respondents) extent. The peer

review aspect of Benchlearning is particularly valued, creating a judgment-free space, as

confirmed by multiple EU level interviewees and the AFEPA workshop.

Some evidence shows an increased transparency of PES performance, both at

national and EU-Level, compared to the previous evaluation period. External

stakeholders were included in the site visit assessments for the first time in the 4th cycle

methodology for dedicated sessions on PES ecosystem, which increased external

transparency at country level (as highlighted by desk research and case studies67). At the

EU-level, data from Benchlearning has been increasingly used to inform annual PES

Capacity reports and various Commission publications68 (based on a data collection report

revamped in 2024), and a summary of outcomes from the 3rd cycle was published69.

Interviewees from EU institutions reported that participating in Benchlearning as observers

provided them with a better understanding of the challenges faced by PES.

67External Study, page 24. 68E.g. Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2025, pg.120. 69See summary outcomes of the 3rd cycle at:

https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=26801&langId=en

24

However, transparency of PES performance at the broader EU level remains reduced

by the limited access to Benchlearning data from external stakeholders (NGOs, social

partners, and Commission staff not directly involved in the PES Network). This also leads

to reduced coherence between the PES Network and labour market stakeholders/EU

policies, as highlighted in section 4.1.3 (Coherence). Wider dissemination of some

Benchlearning assessments results would, however, need to be balanced against the need

to maintain a safe space for PES to share sensitive data and information, a factor identified

as critical to Benchlearning’s success.

4.1.1.2. Facilitating mutual learning, mutual assistance and uptake of good practices

(EQ1b)

The PES Decision has facilitated mutual learning and mutual assistance to a large

extent, with strong evidence of good practice uptake across participating PES (Study

Annex 9). Mutual learning events, mutual assistance and Benchlearning activities, in

particular, providedPES with opportunities to assess their practices, identify ways to

improve performance, and implement innovations (as highlighted by desk research and the

AFEPA survey)70.

Consultations show that mutual learning events and outputs were consistently very

positively viewed71, with consultees, particularly AFEPAs, frequently highlighting that

they provided a space to learn about PES practices on service delivery and management

processes. A majority of surveyed AFEPAs reported that mutual learning events facilitated

knowledge exchange to a large/some extent (see Figure 9). Mutual learning events (the

second-largest work strand with 22% of 650+ outputs, 2021–202572) were also the most

well-known aspect of the PES Network to stakeholders not directly involved in it, implying

that these activities are widely recognised and help disseminate the Network’s work

beyond those directly involved.

Benchlearning is the foundational activity in facilitating mutual learning.

Assessments require PES to identify areas for improvement, in turn triggering engagement

in mutual learning, as found in the consultations and also noted in the 2025 PES Network

Monitoring report. 21 of 31 AFEPAs surveys stated that Benchlearning has facilitated

mutual learning to a large extent (Figure 9). TLDs - a new format only introduced in 2019

- were effective in promoting mutual learning among PES, as highlighted in findings from

the AFEPA survey and the workshops. There were also strong links between

Benchlearning and mutual assistance, with MAPs used to address Benchlearning

recommendations73.

70External Study, page 25 71EU institutions, agencies and structures, international agencies, social partners and civil society

organisations interviews; AFEPAs, and national stakeholders consulted in surveys and case studies. 72Study Annex 6. 73Examples of impact are provided in ANNEX VIII

25

Figure 9. To what extent have each of the following PES Network outputs facilitated

mutual learning in your PES?

Source: AFEPA survey (n=31)

Overall, mutual learning facilitated by PES Network activities has led to the uptake

of good practices to a large extent (Study Annex 9). Multiple examples were provided

by consultees and evidenced in desk research. Some types of activities found to be most

often leading to the uptake of good practices in PES, in particular Thematic Review

Workshops (TRW), WGs, MAPs and TLDs. Evidence is more mixed on the extent to

which other PES Network activities led to the uptake of good practices. Resource-

sharing platforms (e.g., PES Knowledge Centre, Dashboard) were found to be helpful

repositories, yet no direct uptake examples were provided. No examples were provided of

webinars leading directly to uptake, likely due to their focus on external promotion and

dissemination of reports. Reports and studies were perceived to have impacted mutual

learning to a large extent by only 8 out of 31 respondents to the AFEPA survey. This is

likely due to the large range of reports produced, their focus on promoting the work of PES

towards external stakeholders (e.g. annual reports) and, in the case of output papers, the

fact that their impact should be considered jointly to that of related events.

Other outcomes from mutual learning and mutual assistance

Evidence indicates that the primary additional spillover effect is facilitating faster,

more effective crisis responses (e.g. in relation to COVID-19, Russia’s war of

aggression on Ukraine). Consultees (both internal and external) highlighted how the

Network’s crisis-focused mutual learning and assistance activities (e.g., surveys, webinars)

allowed PES to tap into knowledge and resources that supported them to adapt services

effectively. Crisis response was a large focus of the PES Network throughout the

17

10

22

8

9

21

23

7

11

4

8

20

19

6

6

18

0

3

0

2

1

3

1

4

9

1

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

PES Working Groups

Mutual Assistance Projects

Events (Thematic Review Workshops, Seminars,

Webinars, Jour Fixe, PES stakeholder conferences)

Reports and studies

PES Practices in the PES Practice Repository

PES Benchlearning assessments and assessment

reports

Thematic Learning Dialogues

Communication (PES News items, PES Newsletter,

PESpods)

To a large extent To some extent To a limited extent Not at all Don’t Know

26

evaluation period, with 42% of all outputs tackling topics linked to either the pandemic,

Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, or inflation (Study Annex 6). In particular, in the

wake of COVID-19, mutual learning propelled a shift towards digitalisation in service

delivery (e.g. setting up remote counselling platforms and managing short-term

employment schemes). It also helped PES to rapidly adapt their own internal procedures

to integrate remote/hybrid ways of working. Following the start of Russia’s war of

aggression against Ukraine, mutual learning provided a space to plan design and coordinate

approaches to better integrate persons displaced from Ukraine on the European countries

labour markets.74

Factors influencing mutual learning and the take-up of good practicesin Member States

The PES Network has achieved positive results in terms of mutual learning and take-

up of good practices across PES, irrespective of national contexts. PES with differing

sizes, levels of maturity75 and organisational set-ups have implemented changes following

participation in PES Network activities76. Both centralised and decentralised PES have

benefited. EU-level standards, indicators, and mutual learning exercises have proven be

helpful also in decentralised contexts, providing a common reference framework that

supports greater consistency across regional/local PES, helping reduce fragmentation (as

highlighted in the case study on Spain). Participating decentralised PES (e.g. Italy, Finland

and Spain) were also able to learn from each other on specific challenges, including via a

specific TLDs. However, they may face additional obstacles to implementing good

practices, due to the need to adapt to regional/local realities and ensure buy-in from

regional/local management (AFEPA survey and case studies).

Key factors supporting widespread positive impact in this area (identified in surveys

and interviews) include: the peer-to-peer and practical nature of activities (which create

an open dialogue on in depth-operational issues), strong involvement of Heads of PES

(ensuring institutional commitment) and, to some extent, the variety of engagement

formats, allowing PES to tailor their participation (145 mutual learning outputs delivered,

with an increase in the range of formats in 2021–2025). The main hindering factors to

the uptake of good practices include limited financial resources especially for small or

medium-sized PES77; the differing priorities at the national level (cited by 10/31

respondents), affecting political buy-in and resource allocation, regulatory constraints

(such as national and regional procedural rules making it difficult to integrate new practices

quickly (7 respondents). The relatively low visibility of PES Network outputs and

language barriers (with English-only resources) were also identified by a small number of

PES (3 AFEPAS). These hindering factors are similar to those identified in the 2019

74Examples are provided in Annex VIII. 75In Benchlearning assessments, quantitative indicators are generated for each performance enabler to show

how closely each PES approaches the defined Excellence level. Based on the total of the score of all enablers,

a PES is assessed as Mature, Well-developed, Developing or Developable. 76As highlighted in case studies, External Study Annex 4 and the Study Annex 9. 77 Some smaller PES also reported that they benefit more from the PES Network activities by having access

to the knowledge and expertise of larger organisations.

27

evaluation78 likely because they are largely external factors outside the control of the

implementation of the PES Decision.

4.1.1.3 Cooperation between PES Network and relevant labour market stakeholders

(EQ1C)

The PES Decision has led to cooperation between the PES Network and the relevant

labour market actors listed in Article 579 to a high degree overall. This followed 2020

amendments that introduced a focus on cooperation with additional stakeholders compared

to the 2014 Decision, in particular Union agencies, equality bodies, and public employment

services in third countries. During the evaluation period, the PES Network continued to

cooperate regularly with EU and international institutions, social partners, networks and

committees, involving them in a range of PES Network activities, as evidenced by

consultation activities and desk research.

The degree and nature of the cooperation varied, depending on the profile and role

of the stakeholder:

• EU-Level Social Partners (Business Europe, European Trade Union Confederation

(ETUC), SGI, World Employment Confederation (WEC)) were regularly involved as

contributors to targeted thematic discussions (e.g., on employer engagement, labour

market challenges). Sectoral social partners representing Private Employment Services

(WEC Europe) were regularly involved in the annual stakeholder conference, in

particular in 2025 where public-private cooperation was the main focus.

• EU Agencies (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(Cedefop), European Training Foundation (ETF), European Labour Authority (ELA),

and European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)) provided technical expertise,

skills intelligence, policy analysis and thematic insights. Their involvement was

concentrated on mutual learning events focused on areas in the agencies’ remits,

including skills development (Cedefop), labour mobility (ELA80), gender equality

(EIGE)81 and the Western Balkan PES (ETF).

• EU Networks (such as EURES, the Social Protection Committee's Minimum Income

Network (SPC)) and support structures (European Skills, Competences, Qualifications

and Occupations (ESCO) Secretariat) were involved trough technical coordination

78Study supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES) - Publications Office of the EU, pg.43-44. 79Other providers of employment and social services and the social partners, and, where appropriate, Union

agencies in the areas of employment, social policy, gender equality, and education and training,

organisations representing unemployed persons or other vulnerable groups, equality bodies, vocational

training organisations, NGOs working in the fields of employment and just transition, and regional and

local authorities; PES from third countries. 80Including participation in the Annual conference 2025, presentations of the Talent Pool Pilot, of

communication activities, participation of PES Network Chair in various ELA events. 81e.g. Cedefop contributed to the 2022 PES Network seminar Future Skills; EIGE contributed to the 2021

webinar on PES approaches to the promotion of gender equality; Benchlearning materials were made

use of by ETF in their activities.

28

(e.g. ESCO Secretariat being involved in the Working Group on Taxonomies), policy

alignment and participation in governance processes.

• International Organisations and global networks (Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Labour Organization (ILO),

World Association of Public Employment Services (WAPES)) primarily contributed

as knowledge partners providing thematic expertise to support PES Network

Activities (all of them - their members in the case of WAPES - having participated to

the at least one conferences and Board meetings). Instances of PES Network providing

expertise to partners were also identified (e.g. feeding into an OECD study on AI in

PES and to WAPES activities on greening82).

• NGO engagement was less frequent, focused on a number of relevant selective

issues83 (e.g. annual conference 2024 on groups further from the labour market which

saw the participation of several NGOs as speakers, launch and dissemination of toolkit

on support to persons with disabilities).

• The PES Network also cooperated with PES from Third Countries. The Board

agreed in June 2024 to step up cooperation with enlargement countries. PES from

enlargement countries were invited to 2024/2025 Stakeholder Conferences and

attended at Head of PES level, Network members and the Secretariat took part in

activities from relevant EU funded projects. In this context, the Lithuanian PES

increased exchanges with Eastern Partnership countries (e.g., Moldova). PES from

Ukraine, Switzerland, United Kingdom were also invited to attend dedicated PES

Board discussions (in person and online), respectively in 2021, 2023 and 2024.

• Cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions took place primarily via PES Network leadership taking

part in high level events84. Regional and local authorities’ involvement was more

limited, centred around participation in the stakeholder conference.

With the exception of cooperation with EU agencies, the views of PES Network and

external stakeholders tend to diverge regarding how successful cooperation was.

Consultation evidence found that alignment in practice is dependent on national priorities

and that consultees see a need for more systematic collaboration between the Network and

NGOs, social partners, and employers to strengthen this alignment.According to the

AFEPA survey, PES Network activities were most successful in supporting cooperation

with EU agencies (22/31 respondents) and private employment services (22/31

respondents). EU agencies also expressed positive view on their cooperation with the PES

Network during interviews. Views of other cooperation partners were more mixed.

Whilst welcoming ad-hoc cooperation, interviewed EU social partners called for more

82Catalogue of Actions: New WAPES G7 Group supports greening economies 83e.g. the European Youth Forum contributed to the 2021 PES webinar on supporting young jobseekers in

the recovery period, the European Disability Forum was involved in the launch webinar of the 2022

toolkit on strengthening PES to improve the labour market outcomes of persons with disabilities. 842023 Conference on "The social dimension in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans, 2025 hearing

on the EU anti-poverty strategy.

29

systematic engagement, particularly on data sharing (including from Benchlearning

outcomes, as highlighted in section 4.1.1.1) and policy priorities. NGOs interviewed

shared a similar view, reporting a more limited degree of cooperation and less familiarity

with the work of the Network than some other stakeholders.

The views of stakeholders on cooperation also diverged in the 2019 evaluation, with those

directly involved in the PES Network holding more positive views compared than external

stakeholders. However, the current evaluation shows that this is less the case now. A

higher degree of cooperation between the PES Network and external partners in this

implementation period is visible, suggesting that the 2020 amended Decision (which

increased the focus on cooperation) was effectively implemented in this area. This was

also recognised by several NGO interviewees who felt that, although cooperation remains

limited, the interest of the Network to cooperate had increased.

4.1.1.4 Contribution to strengthened, modernised and better performing PES (EQ2)

Benchlearning and mutual learning activities contributing to strengthened, modernised and

better performing PES (EQ2a and EQ2b)

The PES Decision’s implementation has contributed to a large extent to strengthened,

modernised and better performing PES. In the AFEPA survey, all 31 AFEPAs agreed

that the objective has been achieved (Study Annex 8, Figure 1). Similarly positive views

were expressed in the EMCO/ministries survey (20 of 22 respondents – Study Annex 8,

Figure 25). Benchlearning and mutual learning activities have greatly supported

operational cooperation and shared approaches among PES on strategic priorities.

The Network has contributed to triggering PES development especially in

performance management, service delivery, governance and addressing structural

labour market challenges, byenabling PES to share experiences and tools and pilot

common approaches on a range of relevant areas (see examples in Table 5, Annex V).

PES performance management - Consultations85 show that PES Network activities in the

area of PES performance management have strengthened PES across all levels of maturity

and regardless of size, as seen also in section 4.1.1.2 (EQ1b). Strategic performance

management benefitted from Benchlearning to a large or some extent for 23 of 31 AFEPAs

(Study Annex 8, Figure 3). Feedback is also very positive across all three areas of PES

Performance management (Study Annex 8 figure 5 and Figure 10 below), with the highest

number of respondents indicating that the digitalisation in PES benefit to a large extent

from the mutual learning activities (14 of 31). This confirms that the Network has

continued to play -since the previous evaluation- an important role in supporting

operational cooperation for PES transition to digital services.

85AFEPA survey and the AFEPA and Heads of PES workshops.

30

Figure 10 - To what extent have each of the following areas of PES responsibility

benefited from mutual learning activities in your PES?

PES service delivery - The PES Network has supported individual PES to strengthen and

modernise their service delivery to jobseekers and employers to a large extent. Desk

research shows that most (73 %) of the PES network outputs were related to ensuring

quality service delivery (Figure 7 and Study Annex 6). These activities are very well-

perceived by consulted AFEPAs in terms of their contribution to enhancing PES service

delivery, with particularly high results for labour market integration of vulnerable groups

and personalised services to jobseekers (See Study Annex 8, Figure 5, 86 Examples are

provided in Study Annex 7 - 2a-B).

PES governance and ecosystem - PES Network activities contributed to strengthening

cooperation between individual PES and other actors at the national level, equipping them

with new tools to engage within the broader labour market ecosystem. However, the extent

of this varies by type of actor: the largest effects were reported in cooperation with

employers, owing to their particular status as both PES clients and stakeholders. This aligns

with the Network’s thematic priorities, with 49% of all activities and outputs PES related

to cooperation with employers (Study Annex 6). Cooperation with other actors (NGOs,

social partners) was somewhat strengthened through the PES Network’s activities, though

evidence for this was more limited than that for employers. This aligns with the findings

in EQ1c. Examples are provided in Study Annex 7, 2a-E.

Structural labour market challenges - The PES Network has supported individual PES

to strengthen and modernise their work in addressing skills and labour shortages and labour

market skills anticipation. Mutual learning activities in these areas benefitted to a majority

of PES, especially those related to addressing skills and labour shortages(See Study Annex

8627 and 26 of 31 AFEPAs respectively indicated that mutual learning has benefitted these areas of PES

responsibility to a large or some extent.

14

5

9

11

18

17

4

4

2

1

3

2

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

PES Performance Management: Digitalisation in PES

PES Performance Management: Upskilling of PES

staff

PES Performance Management: PES reform

To a large extent To some extent To a limited extent Not at all Don’t Know

31

8, Figure 5). 68% of PES Network activities and outputs related to the theme identification

of skills and labour shortages, low training participation and activation of the inactive

whilst 37% of mutual learning activities contributed to identifying skills shortages and

enhancing supply-demand matching.

Cooperation and experience exchange between PES (EQ2c)

Enhancing cooperation and experience exchange between PES is the main success

story of the PES Network. Consulted stakeholders across all categories stressed the

invaluable contribution in fostering cooperation, by providing a formal space for exchange

and peer learning. Most AFEPA survey respondents and all 17 respondents to

EMCO/ministries survey reported PES increased cooperation under the amended PES

Decision (See Study Annex 8, Figures 6 and 29). Desk research supports this with the PES

Network 2025 Monitoring report noting that 83% of AFEPAs found that 2023-2024

mutual learning activities strengthened Member States cooperation. Further examples of

cooperation through Benchlearning and mutual learning activities can be found in Study

Annex 7.

Participating PES also developed or intensified new cooperation activities during the

evaluation period, pointing to a high degree of cooperation fostered by the Network.

These include PES-to-PES surveys prepared by the PES themselves and shared with peers,

informing the PES Network Secretariat. Between 2024 and 2025, 59 surveys were shared,

with an average of 50% replies per survey, though a minority87 found them resource

intensive. Study visits to other PES: allow visiting PES to learn about specific practices or

areas of work on which the host PES has extensive expertise. In 2025 for example, several

experts from the Icelandic PES took part in two study visits to the Estonian PES on

Systematic Quality Management.

Several other forms of informal cooperation between PES exist, also because the

Network is a well-established structure, with many national PES representatives having

developed strong personal relationships over time. In some instances, these relationships

have led to bilateral cooperation between PES outside the Network, taking the form of ad

hoc collaboration on specific topics, with positive impacts on PES work (as outlined in

Table 6, Annex V).

4.1.1.5 Contribution to the development and implementation of relevant EU policies (EQ3)

Contributions to policy development and implementation,

The PES Network contributed more to EU-level policy development in the evaluation

period than it did before 2020. Desk research and consultation evidence identified six

instances of Network formal input to upcoming EU-level policy initiatives compared to

one in the 2019 evaluation88. Contributions also expanded beyond formal responses to

8710 respondents to the AFEPA survey. 88 Study supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES) - Publications Office of the EU, p.19 (Network Board contribution to the

Commission’s consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights).

32

Commission consultations to include opinion/position papers89. Some of the PES

Network’s contributions were explicitly referenced in policy initiatives, such as in the

Impact Assessment for the EU Talent Pool Regulation. Policy contributions significantly

expanded to cover new topics and emerging issues such as the green and digital

transitions, labour migration, skills anticipation and forecasting (see EQ4 below), although

the employment domain remains the PES Network’s primary focus, consistently with its

mandate and the previous evaluation period. AFEPA and EMCO/ministries survey

respondents highlighted contributions in field of education, training and lifelong learning,

labour mobility, and EU funding programmes (see also Study Annex 7, 3-B).

There has been a marked increase in the contribution of the PES Network to

monitoring of EU policy initiatives since the 2014–2020 period, both in number

(participation in 6 multilateral surveillance reviews over the evaluation period) and scope

(the Network being involved in new areas including Individual Learning Accounts and

Adequate Minimum Income) (Section 3 and Study Annex 7, 3-C). The engagement with

EMCO is seen by many AFEPAs as a key avenue for influence as it is a systematic, formal,

well-established monitoring process. The Network also contributed indirectly to the

European Semester through the involvement of DG EMPL’s geographic desks in

Benchlearning assessments and the participation of the PES Network Secretariat in country

teams. Country Reports frequently reference PES challenges, occasionally highlighting the

need to strengthen PES90.

Compared to the 2014-2020 period, the Network supported the implementation of a

broader range of policies and through more varied means91. This included developing

tools to support the implementation of EU policy instruments92, carrying out data collection

exercises to gather information on issues or policy priorities, sharing PES perspective in

high-level events, and hosting/taking part in bilateral meetings with policymakers (Study

Annex 7, 3-D for examples).

The PES Network also supported PES better understand EU policy developments in

the field of employment, and of legislative and funding initiatives within PES. 2021-2025

Board and AFEPA meetings minutes suggest DG representatives were routinely invited to

contribute to discussions and/or present relevant policies, while the PES Network

Secretariat provided regular updates. Five consulted PES highlighted the dedicated policy

discussions were valuable for national-level implementation.

89 Study supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES), pg.19. 90PES were mentioned in 11, 13, 13, 19 and 25 Country Reports issues as part of the European Semester in

2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 respectively. See Study Annex 9, Table 2. 91It its earlier focus was in particular on the Youth Guarantee and the LTU recommendations, See Study

supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES) - Publications Office of the EU, pg. 19. 92Such as Toolkit on PES Support to persons with disabilities - part of the Commission’s Disability

Employment Package, building PES Capacity related to the green transition via a toolkit, thematic

review and Taxonomy WG, in line with the Council Recommendation on Fair Transitions.

33

Contribution to relevant EU policies: specific challenges

Barriers to the PES Network’s contribution to EU policymaking were identified. EU-

level stakeholders reported a relatively limited knowledge and understanding of its

resources, likely reducing its policy impact. Engagement with the Network by EU

institutions heavily depends on the outreach efforts of the Secretariat which resource

constraints may further limit. Consultations revealed contrasting stakeholder views on

strengthening the Network’s EU policy role. EU-level stakeholders urged greater

engagement in EU policymaking where PES expertise provide added value (e.g. stronger

cooperation with the European Parliament, the SPC and the ESF+ Committee, Pact for

Skills and the European Alliance for Apprenticeships (EAfA) and the upcoming Skills

Portability Initiative (SPI)). Meanwhile, AFEPAs and Heads of PES raised concerns that

a stronger EU policy focus may divert resources from mutual learning activities. EU-level

consultees noted that the inability to cite Benchlearning findings (in particular in European

Semester Country Reports), as well as the limited visibility of the Network’s strategic

position papers, limit the Network’s role as a key policy actor.

4.1.1.6 Support to thematic policy priorities (EQ4)

The PES Network has addressed the 9 thematic priorities outlined in Article 3 and

supported its members in tackling them to a varying degree, as highlighted in particular

by desk research (Study Annex 6) and consultations (Study Annex 8 Figures 9 and 31).

Out of the 3 new priorities added or reinforced in 202093 the Network expanded its focus

on support to vulnerable groups (Art. 3(a) amended to include persons with disabilities and

those facing discrimination), the identification of skills shortages and skills matching

(Article 3(d) amended to including preventative measures including counselling and career

guidance)94. The focus on Gender equality (Art. 3ca) remained more limited. As regards

other thematic priorities, the Network enhanced its focus in particular on the Increased

voluntary geographical/ occupational mobility (Art.3(f)), better integration of labour

markets (Art.3(e)). The PES Decision has contributed to supporting decent and sustainable

work (Art. 3(b)) to a lesser extent compared to other policy priorities.

New thematic priorities introduced in the revised PES Decision

The focus on supporting vulnerable groups and persons excluded from the labour

market (Art 3 (a)) was reinforced - 58% of all PES outputs addressed these groups.

Compared to the 2014 Decision, the PES Network expanded support activities to people

with disabilities and those facing discrimination95, migrant workers and displaced people

from Ukraine (see EQs1c, 2a and Study Annex 6, 4-A), whilst keeping a strong focus on

youth and LTU96. Similar to the findings of the 2019 evaluation, there is less evidence of

support for the integration of older workers, beyond one-off activities. While 25 of 31

93Namely: gender equality as a new area, inclusion of persons with disability and those facing multiple

discriminations under article 3a as well as preventative measures, VET career guidance under article 3d. 94 See section 2 and Intervention Logic. 95 Including via a Toolkit, dedicated workshops during annual conferences 2024 and 2025, a WG in 2026, a

specific survey. 96e.g. 2021 Thematic Paper on youth employment support, a 2022 video on Youth Employment, EMCO

reviews of the Council recommendations on the reinforced Youth Guarantee and long-term

unemployment.

34

respondents to AFEPAs survey considered that Network contributed to a large and to some

extent to this priority, this was seen different by EMCO/ministries (11 of 17 respondents).

Social partners and civil society organisations called for increased involvement of

organisations representing the vulnerable groups interests in the PES networks activities

to strengthen focus on them. (see EQc1 findings on cooperation with NGOs).

The identification of skills shortages and skills matching (Art.3(d))has become a

stronger focus in 2021-2025, reflecting their emergence as a key challenge over the last

five years. 49% of outputs addressed skills supply/demand matching. The AFEPA and

EMCO/ministries surveys identified this as the main policy priority to which the Network

has contributed. Specific activities were organised regarding the thematic priorities

introduced in the amended Article 3(d)97.

Supporting gender equality (Art. 3(ca)) is a new PES Network priority compared to

Decision 573/2014/EU. 12% of mapped outputs specifically address gender equality.

Many respondents noted limited or no focus, though it is mainstreamed across other

themes.

Other thematic priorities

The PES Decision continued to focus heavily on improving the functioning and

inclusiveness of labour markets (Art.3(c)). Over 52% of mapped outputs (Study Annex

6) focused on this priority 25 of 31 AFEPAs and 12 of 17 EMCO/ministries respondents

saw significant contributions in this area. The workshops and interviews also highlight this

topic as a key priority, with stakeholders indicating that, by, while helping strengthening

and modernising PES, the PES contributes to a better functioning labour market.

Benchlearning and mutual learning play a key role in this process (see EQ2a).

The PES Decision has contributed more prominently to fostering the better

integration of labour markets (Art.3(e)) and increasing voluntary geographical/

occupational mobility (Art.3(f)) compared to the 2014-2020 mandate. The mapping

displays that each of both priorities featured in 22% of all outputs between 2021-2025, and

only 3 of 31 surveyed AFEPAs considered that increased voluntary geographical and

occupational mobility was covered to a large extent. Nevertheless, several PES Network

contributions showed a growing emphasis due to le skills shortages.

Evaluating and assessing active labour market initiatives and their implementation

(Art.3(h)) is a core responsibility in many PES. 32% of the Network’s output addressed

ALMP assessment. Interviewed EU-level stakeholders consider this as a key area of work

for the PES Network. Several trade union consultees called on for more rigorous ALMP

assessments, notably to better support vulnerable groups. In an effort to improve and

streamline ALMP monitoring, the Network has also enhanced synergies between data

97These include, for instance: a study on career guidance (forthcoming), TRWs on prevention of

unemployment, skills intelligence, skill-based approaches.

35

collection for PES benchmarking and the European Commission’s Labour Market Policies

(LMP) database98.

The PES Decision has contributed to supporting decent and sustainable work (Art.

3(b)) to a lesser extent compared to other policy priorities, which is in line with the 2019

evaluation findings. 27% of mapped outputs cover this thematic area and around half of

the respondents to both surveys (Study Annex 8, Figures 9 and 31) stated that the PES

Network has supported this priority to some extent, with only three AFEPA respondents

(no EMCO/ministries) respondents reporting a contribution to decent and sustainable work

to a large extent. Social partners interviewed called for greater focus on quality jobs, amid

labour market changes.

4.1.2 Efficiency99 The implementation of the amended PES Decision is broadly efficient, with most

stakeholders considering that the benefits of participation, particularly

from Benchlearning and mutual learning, clearly outweigh the financial costs. While there

is variation in staff time investments across countries, additional direct costs are generally

low, and overall EU-level costs have decreased compared to the previous period, partly

due to increased use of digital formats. The Network delivers strong benefits through

knowledge sharing, economies of scale, and avoiding duplication, although data

limitations constrain precise cost-effectiveness analysis. Some opportunities for further

efficiency gains exist, notably through improved knowledge management, streamlining

of Benchlearning processes, reinforcing the collaboration with EU agencies and better

integration of activities. Network members are little inclined to reduce the overall scope

of activities given their perceived value.

4.1.2.1 Costs100 and benefits and relationship between them (EQ5)

European Commission costs

European Commission average annual operational and administrative costs over the

evaluation period amounted to EUR 1 994 000. This included both administrative

functions (board and other management meetings, monitoring, evaluation and office

support) and operational activities (delivery of events and knowledge sharing activities).

The average annual cost for administrative activities accounted for 7,4% of this total, while

operational activities (mostly supporting to contractual costs for Benchlearning activities

and to mutual learning and assistance activities) accounted for 92,6%101.

Regarding costs related to staff, 1.9 FTE EC staff annually support the PES Network and

total annual staff costs are estimated to be EUR 234 000102. For the sake of comparability,

this calculation does not include the costs of the four national PES staff seconded to the

98 Labour market policies (LMP) database - Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 99As it is difficult to monetise the benefits, the efficiency of the PES network is assessed qualitatively, by

comparing the PES network deliverables and broader benefits against the costs at national and at the EU

level. 100The information was collected only for the year 2024. (see Annex II section 5 (task 4)). 101Costs were not broken down in this way in the previous evaluation. 102See Annex IV, pg.98 for more details on calculations.

36

Secretariat, as such costs were not addressed explicitly in the previous evaluation. Such

costs are however incurred in country PES time investment below. The annual cost of all

secondees’ time (based on the addition of average gross civil service salaries in each

country) was estimated at EUR 424 000.

The total annual cost of supporting the PES Network and its programme of activities

at EU level is estimated to be EUR 2 228 400, which is lower than the average annual

cost for the previous period (EUR 3.12mn or EUR 3.99mn based on 2024 prices, taking

inflation into account)103. Digitalisation is likely to have helped the Commission to deliver

activities more efficiently while enabling the overall costs to be lower, as explained below.

Country PES time investment and costs

There is significant variation in the absolute amount of time national PES dedicate to

PES Network activities (estimated as number of days in full-time equivalent - FTE),

similarly to the 2019 evaluation104. A small minority of AFEPA survey respondents (3)

reported less than 60 FTE days, while many others (15) indicated higher levels of

engagement (between FTE 500-1000 days at maximum). Nine respondents could not

provide estimates. While the evidence indicates a positive correlation between the size of

the country and the amount of time invested, feedback gathered from AFEPAs indicates

that other elements come into play, such as seconding national experts to the PES Network

Secretariat (DE and FR), chairing WGs (e.g. LT, DK) or hosting mutual learning activities.

Consistent patterns emerge across countries on how this time is used, highlighted

through the AFEPA survey, workshops and cost estimations provided by AFEPAs.

Benchlearning stands out as the most resource-intensive activity, particularly during

assessment years. On average, Benchlearning (including work on data) accounted for

around 0.8 FTE per PES. Benchlearning also generated the highest additional expenditure,

particularly for self-assessment materials and site visits. Other major time commitments

include participation in mutual learning activities (which were the next most onerous for

staff resources but required relatively low additional expenditure), responses to PES-to-

PES surveys and ad hoc requests. AFEPAs and Heads of PES also mentioned time spent

before and after AFEPA and Board meetings, though Governance activities consumed the

least staff time overall.

Most PES incur low to moderate additional annual costs – For travel, accommodation,

translation, and external expertise (additional costs not reimbursed by the Commission),

most estimates fell within the EUR 5 000–10 000 range (10 of 31 responses); followed by

EUR 10 000–20 000 (8 of 31); and EUR 0–5 000105 (6 of 31). Very few AFEPAs reported

higher additional costs. The few responses to a related open question imply that AFEPAs

identified these additional costs as insignificant and that they did not limit their

participation in activities.

103Prices in 2024 are about 28% higher than in 2019 due to inflation (source: Eurostat). 104Study supporting the evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services (PES) - Publications Office of the EU105This was the case for the German PES (see German case study, Study Annex 4, pg.54)

37

Overall total country PES costs, consisting of PES time investments and PES

additional costs, ranged from approximately EUR 11 600 to EUR 364 200, with an

average of approximately EUR 98 800 per country in 2024106.

Comparison with the previous evaluation and a similar Network

An overall higher number of meetings and events were organised, compared to the

previous evaluation period107.A comparative analysis of key deliverables (from mutual

learning and the governance and ecosystems activities) suggests that an overall higher

number of meetings and events took place over the 2021-2025 period compared with the

2014-2018 period. Benchlearning activities were excluded due to issues of comparability

(difference of level of granularity) with the previous period. The previous evaluation

suggests an average of 14.5 meetings or events108 each year. Over the 2021-2025 period,

an average of 23 meetings or events took place each year. There was also a lower ratio of

administrative to operational meetings in the current period. This should be seen in a

context where digitalisation allowed to have more frequent, but also shorter meetings.

The greater use of online formats for meetings has led to efficiency savings for the

operation of the Network. Over 2014-2018, three of the 58 events or meetings (5%) were

held online only. Over 2022-2025, excluding 2021 due to all events being held online due

to the pandemic, 49 of the 92 events were held online, representing 53% of all meetings

and events. When broken down by activity category, the majority of governance and

ecosystem activities were in-person (18 of the 24), while the majority of mutual learning

activities were online (43 of the 68)109.

A comparison with the European Migration Network (EMN), a cooperation and

knowledge sharing network of similar scope, provides further evidence of the PES

Network’s cost-effectiveness. Both PES and EMN produce substantial knowledge

distribution outputs, including factsheets, reports, and newsletters, and engage in capacity

building activities such as workshops and webinars. The PES Network has a larger budget

than EMN which aligns with its mandate to deliver additional activities such as

Benchlearning cycles, study visits, and MAPs. EMN produces fewer deliverables but

contributes extensively through meeting participation, events, and project involvement.

106PES expenditure, by type (% GDP), average across groups of PES can be found in Trends in PES –

Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025, pg. 116. 107 Unit cost analysis can offer insights into how resources translate into specific outputs and results;

however, as boundaries between PES Network activities are often fluid, it is challenging to isolate the

proportion of staff time, financial resources, or other inputs contributing to each output or result. There

are also limitations in the precision and completeness of available. The evaluation concluded that

producing unit cost estimates for specific activities across the Network was not feasible. 108Includes: WGs, TRWs, study visits, follow-up visits, webinars, seminars, AFEPA and Board meetings. 109 See Study Annex 3b, section D, for detail on the delivery format of events in the 2021-25 period.

38

Table 3. Comparison of PES Network and EMN deliverables (2024)

Costs/deliverables PES Network EMN

Budget (annual) EUR 2.2 mn EUR 2.0 mn

Working groups 5

Capacity building activities 8 21

Good practice publishing 14

Published report/studies/position papers

6

Factsheets 32 31

Conferences 1 (EU level) 14 (national)

Newsletters published 4 4

News articles 13

Podcast episodes 3

Source: Ecorys’ own analysis, 2026.

Relationship between costs and benefits

Benefits

The application of the PES Decision has been overall cost-effective, with stakeholders

considering the Network as a catalyst for PES modernisation, resource savings and

institutional resilience.

Enhanced economies of scale, reduced duplication and accelerated reforms - through

‘copy-adapt’ approaches - were the primary benefits. Activities improved service

quality, policy alignment, and innovation. The PES Network is viewed as a good use of

resources based on what it has achieved. The learning role of the Network as well as its

role as a platform for collaboration are critical to foster relationships and productive

discussions among PES. As a second core benefit are the significant cost savings from

accessing knowledge from other PES via the Network rather than relying on external

consultants to access this expertise (as highlighted by several AFEPAs and Heads of PES).

For example, the Spanish PES used Digitalisation WG insights to improve its data

exchange system (SISPE-CEUS), reducing the administrative costs for the PES. The case

studies also showed that smaller PES (e.g. BG, LT, SI) would have more limited access to

advanced solutions without the Network. As a third core benefit, the Network represents

a strategic asset that enhances PES’ policy alignment and foresight. Participation

enables PES to anticipate and adapt to emerging EU priorities (green and digital transitions,

inclusion, crisis responses during COVID-19 and the influx of persons displaced from

Ukraine).

Cost-effectiveness

Benefits of participating in PES Network activities outweigh the costs, with

collaborative opportunities, knowledge base, and peer support providing a strong return on

investment. Most of AFEPAs, 23 of 31 respondents stated that benefits significantly or

slightly exceeded costs (study Annex 8, Figure 13). Only one felt costs slightly exceeded

benefits, while four saw them as equal. Among the highest-time-investing countries, six of

39

seven said benefits outweighed the costs though one indicated there was scope for

efficiency gains.

The overall work of the PES Network during 2021–2025 was cost-effective, a

conclusion supported by a large majority of AFEPAs (26 of 31, with 15 strongly agreeing

and 11 agreeing)110. The country case studies also consistently showed that Network

participation is considered cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness perceived by AFEPAs 111

varies across activities: WG and TLDs were the most highly rated (both 21 of 31

responses), followed by Mutual learning events (19 of 31), Benchlearning assessments (17

of 31), and PES Practices (15 of 31). PESpods and MAPs had the smallest positive shares

and also attracted the few ‘not cost-effective’ ratings. (Study Annex 8, Figure 14). Overall,

most AFEPAs agreed that the PES Network’s structured governance, multi-annual

planning, and continuity of activities ensured cost-effectiveness with operational and

strategic gains (e.g. improved performance management, digital transformation, enhanced

cooperation) far outweighing the associated costs.

While the global perception was strongly positive, a few AFEPAs mentioned

challenges in assessing cost-effectiveness (in the absence of systematic monitoring),

citing limited visibility of EU-level costs or the need for detailed financial data112. Some

also acknowledged that benefits were occasionally constrained by timing or resource

limitations, and one noted that Benchlearning could feel bureaucratic and time-consuming.

A few consultees identified further challenges, including language barriers, and timing

misalignments with national reforms.

4.1.2.2 Potential for simplification and reduction of inefficiencies (EQ6)

38% of AFEPAs identified opportunities for efficiency gains, emphasizing the

potential to develop a more integrated, digitally supported, and outcome-focused

approach, while maintaining flexibility and the collaborative spirit of the network.

The primary potential for efficiency gains lies in knowledge management, as

highlighted by most PES when making suggestions in this area. Streamlining of existing

platforms (such as the PES Knowledge Centre and PES Practices repository) could

improve usability and user-friendliness. This would give PES easier access to the existing

knowledge developed through the Network, and help them gather relevant information

more efficiently, while reducing the number of requests for additional input (e.g. PES-to-

PES surveys). Better use of online platforms was already flagged in the 2019 evaluation.

While progress has been made (such as the co-creation of some documents, the

development of a collaborative space for the Digitalisation WG and Benchlearning site

110In the survey questionnaire cost-effectiveness was defined as the relation between the resources invested

(costs) and the results achieved by the PES Network through its work and activities with reference to

categories of results listed in a previous question. In the absence of more systematic evidence on the

quantitative relationship between costs and benefits, AFEPA’s reflections based on their experience

were included as a useful source of evidence. See Study Annex 8, Figure 14 and 17. 111Study Annex 8. Figure 14 shows AFEPAS replies to the following questions “Using the previous

definition, to what extent was your PES' involvement in the following activities and outputs of the PES

Network cost-effective? (N=31)”. 112External study, pg. 53.

40

visits), further use of a common repository for documents sharing and co-creation,

alongside streamlining of existing platforms (‘knowledge hub’), could provide additional

resources savings.

A few AFEPAs (less than five) noted that Benchlearning preparation and site visits

are resource-intensive and could be streamlined. Interviews with Benchlearning

Steering Group members suggest that efficiency in Benchlearning preparation and site

visits could be achieved by strengthening the link between Benchlearning cycles, focusing

more on monitoring progress from previous assessments rather than starting each cycle

from scratch. In addition, the preparation phase could be simplified via digital tools.

Additional suggestions focused in particular on administrative tools and improving

synergies between activities. Leveraging digital tools (e.g., micro-learning modules,

multilingual guides, communities of practice) could help reduce onboarding costs and

broaden dissemination. Other practical suggestions included improving predictability

through clearer calendars, reducing interpretation costs by maintaining English as the

working language, prioritising high-value outputs like benchmarking and innovation

projects. Most AFEPA survey respondents (Study Annex 8, Figure 15) stated there were

sufficient synergies between different types of Network activities (16 of 31 responses)113.

Respondents suggested that enhancing cost-effectiveness could centre on stronger

coordination, better integration of activities, and aligning activities strategically around

common themes. Suggestions also included creating thematic networks of experts;

improving communication and scheduling; using updated data to minimise repetitive tasks;

and ensuring systematic follow-up on recommendations.

Synergies with partners also offer potential for efficiency gains, as highlighted in

surveys and workshops. Stronger ties with EU initiatives (e.g., Pact for Skills, EURES)

and policy areas, such as mobility and labour migration, could maximise impact and reduce

overlap. Efficiencies could be gained by fostering stronger synergies with relevant EU

agencies (e.g. Eurofound, Cedefop) and contributing to their work, thus reducing the

number of Network studies and publications and mitigating the risk of duplication. A few

stakeholders (less than five) suggested inviting PES partners and field practitioners to

selected events to broaden perspectives and improve implementation.

The evaluation does not identify grounds for scaling back or discontinuing any

specific PES Network activities. All types of activities were considered valuable and key

to contribute to the Network’s objectives (by 21 of 27 AFEPAs). Besides, the format of

meetings (in person/online) did not emerge as a priority area for further efficiency gains.

While the 2019 evaluation’s call for further use of online meetings and live-streaming has

been partially implemented, with a growing share of online meetings, in-person

engagement remains highly valued for trust-building and informal exchange. Only a few

113Another 12 respondents stated that there were sufficient synergies to some extent, while only two felt it

was to a limited extent, and one respondent selected ‘Don’t know’.

41

stakeholders advocated replacing large events with hybrid formats, citing resource

constraints.

Overall, the PES Network’s management and governance were rated very positively.

Support and management activities (Secretariat and contractors) received the strongest

endorsement in the AFEPA survey (25 of 31 respondents rating them very efficient, see

Study Annex 8, Figure 16), followed by the composition of the Board (24 of 31). Decision-

making and governance processes and Board size were also viewed favourably. The survey

responses did not include any negative ratings. The AFEPA workshop generally reflected

the positive view of the efficiency of decision-making and governance processes within

the PES Network, underlining its clear, well-structured, and professional processes.

Participants agreed the framework ensures continuity, strategic focus, and effective

coordination, backed by high-quality documentation, exemplified by the successful launch

of the 2024 Memorandum. The structure was also credited with driving PES modernisation

and EU alignment, delivering clear added value. Overall, while governance is widely

regarded as efficient, there is some interest in streamlining processes and enhancing the

strategic depth of discussions. Some concerns (10 of 31 respondents) included the need to

simplify decision-making (e.g. to reduce multi-level validations from both AFEPAs and

Board members). Recommendations included spending less time on administrative issues

in meetings, delegating Network tasks to AFEPAs, focusing in-person meetings on

strategy, networking, and external expertise.

4.1.3 Coherence The amended PES Decision is coherent and complementary to EU policies in employment

and labour mobility, education and training, enlargement, labour migration, green, digital

and competitiveness policy, as well as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It is

coherent with EU funding instruments and the work of EU agencies under the remit of DG

EMPL. The strongest coherence is with EU policies in the field of employment. There is

potential to strengthen synergies with labour market policies impacting PES. The PES

Decision is also coherent with and complementary to national policies. Activities and

inputs at EU and national level are appropriate for achieving the objectives (internal

coherence).

4.1.3.1 Coherence and Complementarity with EU and other International Policies and

initiatives114 (EQ7)

The coherence and complementarity of the revised PES Decision and its implementation

were examined against 32 EU and international policies and initiatives. The findings

demonstrate that the 2020 PES Decision is coherent and/or complementary to EU and

international policies to a large extent. The 2019 evaluation115 of the original PES Decision

indicated a high level of coherence with relevant EU policies. This high level of coherence

and complementarity has continued under the 2020 PES Decision, but the scope of EU

114This section is based on Analysis of the coherence of the policy objectives, scope and activities in the legal

texts underpinning policies (desk research) is complemented by analysis of the views of stakeholders

(via consultations and surveys) and insights from case studies. 115 EUR-Lex - 52019SC1350 - EN - EUR-Lex

42

policies which are coherent with the PES Network has broadened (encompassing e.g.

green, digital and competitiveness policies and the UN SDGs), and the PES Network

activities have increasingly focused on actively seeking synergies and fostering

cooperation. However, coherence in the implementation of EU employment policies could

be improved though enhanced access to Benchlearning outcomes from key stakeholders at

EU level (as highlighted in section 4.1.1.1). There is also potential to strengthen synergies

with labour market policies impacting PES.

Coherence in policy frameworks and implementation

EU policies in employment, and education and training

Analysis of the legal text indicates a high degree of coherence between the objectives of

the PES Decision and EU policies in employment, labour mobility, and education and

training. The analysis suggests that there is complementarity, rather than overlap, with

these policies. The evaluation also demonstrates that the PES Network has actively sought

to ensure coherence and complementarity with relevant EU employment policies. For

example, the PES Network contributed to the implementation of the European Pillar of

Social Rights via AFEPA and Board workshops in 2024, leading to an opinion paper in

2025. The Network also contributed to

Labour mobility

The PES Decision is coherent with and complementary to EU labour mobility policies

and tools, as confirmed by desk research116.A strong majority of survey respondents also

considered that the PES Decision was coherent to a large extent with policy initiatives

related to labour mobility117. For instance, while the PES Network focuses on

strengthening cooperation between PES to improve PES performance, the EURES

Network focuses in particular on the pooling of job vacancies and applications, in the

context of Article 45 and 46 TFEU. The PES Decision objectives of supporting PES

activities to facilitate labour mobility for individuals and helping employers to address

skills shortages is also complementary with those of the Europass118 platform and tools.

However, there is potential to strengthen both the coherence of legal frameworks and

synergies in implementation of key labour market policies impacting PES, as

highlighted in Box 3. The Network’s maturation in recent years, alongside evolving

labour market challenges and the development of related EU policies over the evaluation

period suggests scope for further progress. This concerns in particular EURES, Europass,

and the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information.

116 See further analysis in the Study Annex 9.1 (Table 4) and Study Annex 9.2. 11720 of 31 responses in the AFEPA survey and 14 of 17 responses in the EMCO/ministries survey considered

that the PES Decision was coherent to a large extent with EU labour mobility policies. A further 7

responses for AFEPAs and 3 for EMCO ministries considered that they were coherent to some extent.

See Study Annex 8, Figures 18 and 34. 118Decision - 2018/646 - EN - EUR-Lex

43

Box 3. Enhancing synergies with labour mobility policies and instruments

While the PES Decision itself is broadly coherent with EU labour mobility policies, there is potential

for further alignment with key policy areas and instruments. For instance, although the EURES

Regulation calls for cooperation between both networks, the PES Network Decision does not entail any

specific reference to EURES. Public Employment Services are explicitly mentioned as a target group in the

Europass Regulation (Article 1)119. The recent revision of EC regulations 883/2004120 and 987/2009121 on

social security coordination (both of which entail numerous references to employment services) indirectly

reinforces the role of PES, putting an additional focus on data and information exchange about the situation

of unemployed persons who export their unemployment benefits, such as on their compliance with activation

and job placement measures and on work resumption.

Developments over 2021-2025 also point to potential for further synergies in implementation, highlighted

by desk research and consultations:

EURES:Both the PES Network and EURES contribute to initiatives related to the EU Talent Pool122,

monitor labour shortages and address cooperation with private employment services. Cooperation on these

topics between both networks took mostly the form of exchange of information. Of the five stakeholders

who commented on coherence with EURES, two (from the European Commission and an EU-level network)

called for closer cooperation with the EURES Network, while one stakeholder linked to EURES called for

further clarification of the remits of each Network. In the autumn 2025, Heads of PES from Slovenia and

Croatia launched a joint letter calling for enhanced synergies between the PES Network and EURES,

presented during the December 2025 Board. A joint meeting between AFEPAs and EURES National

Coordination Officers took place in March 2026, where participants called for enhanced cooperation on

priority topics, including labour market transitions, shortages, personalised services and digitalisation.

Europass: Over the evaluation period, synergies between Europass and EURES were stepped up to enhance

jobseeker services and streamlining European digital tools for employment and mobility123. PES can benefit

in a strategic way from the standardised Europass CV format, whichmakes the skills, qualifications and

experiences of job seekers more comparable, both at the national level and in a cross-border mobility context.

Europass is based on the multilingual ESCO taxonomy, which also contributes to the transparency of skills

and occupations of job seekers and can therefore improve job matching. Half of all PES who responded to

a 2024 survey124 offer the use of Europass as part of their career guidance (51%, 16 out of 31) to both

registered unemployed and employed people. Europass is also offered to non-registered customers by 32%

of PES respondents125 while all PES make jobseekers aware of it when creating a CV. The Europass user

base has been continuously increasing since the launch of the revamped platform in July 2020. By May 2026,

users have created 10 million Europass profiles (around 1,5 million profiles each year) and the platform has

received nearly 145 million visits in total.

EESSI: From 32 EEA countries which use the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI)

for unemployment benefits exchanges, in August 2026 PES from five countries (BG, IE, IT,, MT, PL) do

not directly participate in the exchanges which may affect the efficiency of those exchanges126. In support of

the adoption of the revision of the Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and its implementing Regulation (EC) No.

987/2009, the Commission issued a statement committing to explore already under the existing framework

enhancements of the digital data exchanges between the institutions (within EESSI), and to explore further

119 Decision - 2018/646 - EN - EUR-Lex 120 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004R0883. 121 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/987/oj/eng. 122 European Commission, EU Talent Pool. EU Talent Pool - Migration and Home Affairs - European

Commission 123 Europass and EURES become stronger together with one goal – better supporting job seekers! 124 https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27936&langId=en, pg.25. 125 https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27936&langId=en , pg.25. 126 https://ec.europa.eu/social/social-security-directory/pai/select-country/language/en

44

solutions in the context of the upcoming Fair Labour Mobility Package to reinforce cooperation and data

exchanges between institutions on control, activation and job placement measures in the context of export of

unemployment benefits.

EU funding instruments

There is also a high level of coherence and complementarity127 with EU funds supporting

PES capacity, especially the ESF+, but also the RRF and the TSI. There are various

examples of the use of ESF+ to support PES modernisation and of PES Network outputs

which actively encouraged the use of ESF+ (Section 3.3, Study Annex 7(7-D)). The

objectives, scope and types of intervention set out in the RRF128 and TSI129 regulations are

also coherent and complementary with the PES Decision, although these cover much

broader policy fields.

EU enlargement policy

The evidence also indicates that the 2020 PES Decision is coherent with EU enlargement

policy. The Annual Commission Communications on EU enlargement policy130 over the

evaluation period highlight progress and challenges in the functioning of labour markets,

including labour mobility, which are coherent with the PES Decision. There have been

efforts since 2024 to involve PES from enlargement countries in the PES Network’s events.

The Employment and Social Affairs Platform (ESAP) in the Western Balkans has

supported labour cooperation and PES development, including replication of the

Benchlearning model131.

EU migration policy

Analysis of the Pact on Migration and Asylum132, the Talent Partnerships133 and the EU

Talent Pool134 confirms that they are coherent with the 2020 PES Decision objectives, and

complementary due to their specific focus on third country nationals135. A seminar was

organised in 2023 to take stock of the evolving role of PES in the labour market integration

of third country nationals (presentation of the final thematic paper136 during the Labour

Migration Platform in October 2024137). The participants at the Heads of PES workshop

also emphasised the strong focus of the PES Network on the labour market integration of

displaced people from Ukraine, and the role of the PES Network in the Talent Pool Pilot

for beneficiaries of temporary protection.

127See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Tables 6-7), and Study Annex 9.2. 128Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing

the Recovery and Resilience Facility.129Regulation (EU) 2021/240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 February 2021 establishing

a Technical Support Instrument. 1302025 EU Enlargement Package.131See Study Annex 7 (example 7-L) for further examples. 132Pact on Migration and Asylum. 133https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-resettlement/talent-

partnerships_en 134https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1047/oj/eng 135See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Table 10). 136Attracting skilled labour from third countries 137See Study Annex7 (example 7-M) for further examples.

45

EU green, digital and competitiveness policies

The communication on the Clean Industrial Deal138 and the European Green Deal139 (which

includes a focus on activating education and training) are coherent with the PES Decision

objective on addressing skills shortages. The Council recommendation on a Fair Transition

towards Climate Neutrality140 shows a high degree of coherence with the PES Decision

objectives, particularly through the mention of effective support to quality employment

through employment services141. The Digital Compass142 and Digital Decade143 both

include a focus on digital skills, also in coherence with the 2020 PES Decision’s objective

on addressing skills shortages144. The communication on the EU Competitiveness

Compass145 is coherent as it includes promoting skills and quality jobs as one of the

horizontal enablers that are necessary to promote competitiveness146. 42% of PES Network

outputs addressed the digital and green transition.

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The 2020 PES Decision has a high degree of coherence with the UN Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs)147, in particular SDGs 8 and 4, but also SDGs 1, 3, 5 and 10148.

Outcomes of consultations

The consultations (interviews, surveys, workshops, case studies) support that

coherence and complementarity between the PES Network objectives/activities and

EU and international policies are overall high. A large majority of the surveyed

AFEPAS and EMCO/ministries consider that is a large extent of coherence across all

policy areas (See Evaluation Annex 9, Figures 18 and 34). The survey respondents

highlighted the important role played by the PES Network itself in ensuring the coherence

of activities under PES responsibility with EU and international policies, in two different

ways: firstly (top-down), by facilitating an understanding of key policies across the PES

Network; and secondly (bottom-up), by giving PES a voice in shaping those policies.

There was, however, a variation in the perceived extent of coherence among different

policy areas. Across all consultations (surveys, interviews, workshops), the policy areas

considered to have the largest extent of coherence were those related to employment, as

well as education, training and lifelong learning (See Study Annex 8, Figures 18 and 34).

22 of 31 respondents in the AFEPA survey and 15 of 17 responses in the EMCO/ministries

survey considered that the European Semester and EU policy initiatives linked to active

support to employment were coherent to a large extent (See Study Annex 8, Figures 18

138 The Clean Industrial Deal: A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation’.139 The European Green Deal. 140 ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality 2022/C 243/04.141See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Table 11) and further examples in Study Annex 7 (7-H). 142 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade. 143Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022

establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030. 144 See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Table 11). 145A Competitiveness Compass for the EU. 146See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Table 12). 147https://sdgs.un.org/goals. 148 See analysis in Study Annex 9.1 (Table 13).

46

and 34.). Further examples of EU policies underlined as being coherent included the EPSR,

EURES149, the Youth Guarantee, the EU Talent Pool150, the Quality Jobs Roadmap151, and

the Network’s involvement in committees such as EMCO152. All consultees considered

that enlargement, migration, green, digital and competitiveness policies were coherent

and/or complementary with the PES Network objectives to some degree (See Study Annex

8 Figures 18 and 34.)153. The lowest proportion of survey respondents stated that there was

a large extent of coherence with the UN SDGs.

There was also a strong consensus that the PES Decision’s objectives were coherent

with the EU funding instruments supporting PES capacity (e.g. ESF+, RRF, TSI).

Several (more than five) interviewees154 confirmed that they were aware of EU-funded

projects run by PES (most commonly ESF+) to implement Benchlearning

recommendations. The case studies also confirmed the strong coherence with EU funding

available at national level, in implementation (Study Annex 4, see also Section 3.3).

Although the PES conducted activities to boost the uptake of EU funding to support PES

reform (see Study Annex 7 (7-J)), some interviewees considered that more could be done

to increase synergies (e.g. cooperation with ESF+ Managing Authorities).

Interviewees155 also considered that there is a high level of coherence with the

mandates of the EU agencies under the remit of DG EMPL. All interviewees from the

respective agencies said that they would welcome enhanced cooperation.

4.1.3.2 Coherence and complementarity with national policies and initiatives (EQ8)

The PES Decision objectives and its implementation have remained largely coherent

and complementary to national policies, with this alignment strengthening further

compared to the 2019 evaluation. Qualitative evidence strongly suggests a more active

dissemination of learning among national policymakers, and greater acknowledgement of

the value of this learning at national level.

Consultations and case studies confirmed that the PES Decision and its

implementation was considered coherent and complementary with national policies

to a large extent. This concerns primarily the fields of employment and skills, but also

wider policy areas such as migrant integration, wider support for vulnerable groups and

addressing the green, digital and demographic transitions. The majority of AFEPA and

EMCO/ministries survey respondents considered that PES Network activities are coherent

149However, two interviewees called for closer cooperation with the EURES Network, and one EURES

stakeholder recommended further clarification of the remits of each Network. 150https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-

resettlement/work/eu-talent-pool_en 151 Communication (COM(2025) 944 final) on the Quality Jobs Roadmap. 152 Further examples can also be found in Study Annex 7 (example 7-I). 153No AFEPA considered that any of these policies were not coherent with the objectives of the PES Network.

Only one respondent to the EMCO/ministry survey considered that the objectives were not coherent

with EU competitiveness policy, while one other respondent considered that they were not coherent with

EU enlargement policy. 154EU institutions (Geographical desks), agencies and structures; international agencies; EU social partners. 1553 EU institutions, agencies and structures; international agencies; 2 AFEPAs.

47

to a large extent with national employment policies156. This alignment has been further

ensured by the bottom-up approach guiding Work Programme development, co-created

with members, as underlined in the Head of PES workshop. Many underpinning

examples were identified through desk research consultations and case studies (Study

Annex 4). In Germany, for instance, the PES Decision objectives align with national goals

on labour force participation, migrant integration, and skills intelligence. In Spain,

coherence is evident in digitalisation, employer engagement, and performance indicators.

In Finland, the municipality-based employment service model aligns with PES Decision

goals on vulnerable groups and youth employment. The PES Decision objective to develop

more effective services for both jobseekers and employers aligns closely with the evolving

municipality-based employment service system in Finland.

The value of learning from the PES Network is increasingly seen as supporting

national policy development and there were many examples of mechanisms at national

level to foster complementarity with it. One AFEPA stated that ‘when the government is

working on strategies and measures in these areas, it frequently seeks advice from us within

the PES’, while another highlighted that ‘the ministry and stakeholders/social partners see

how effective it is to pose questions to all of Europe. Being able to gain insight into what

is happening helps them determine whether they are on the right track157. Another AFEPA

highlighted the value of the Network in identifying new policy areas: ‘Encountering these

topics repeatedly within the Network (e.g. skills portability) prompts us to pay attention

and take action.’

Nonetheless, some consultees158 noted that challenges to ensuring coherence with

national policies still exist. These include that EU policy priorities are not necessarily

always aligned with national policy priorities (e.g. on topics such as migration or green

policy) and that policy cycles sometimes do not align159. These challenges do not however

affect the PES Decision’s ability to meet its general or specific objectives or achieve EU

added value.

4.1.3.3 Appropriateness of activities and inputs in achieving objectives (EQ9)

The evaluation findings suggest that there is good internal coherence within the

amended PES Decision, and that Network activities and inputs are appropriate for

achieving its objectives. The implementation of the PES Decision closely follows the

logic set out in the intervention logic (see Study Annex 5). The inputs and activities as

156In the AFEPA survey (n=31), 17 respondents considered that it was coherent to a large extent, with a

further 10 stating that it was coherent to some extent. In the EMCO/ministries survey (n=22), 13

respondents considered that it was coherent to a large extent, and a further 5 to some extent. See Study

Annex 8 (Figures 19 and 35). 157Two AFEPAs at the AFEPA workshop. 1583-4 respondents to the AFEPA and EMCO/ministries surveys; 5-6 participants in the AFEPA and Heads

of PES workshops. 159While this does not necessarily prevent PES Network activities/priorities from influencing the PES

Network (and vice versa), it means that it can be more challenging, or be delayed, where policy timings

do not align.

48

described in the intervention logic are appropriate for achieving the specific and general

objectives of the PES Decision.

Effective coordination at both EU and national levels is essential for ensuring the

successful implementation of the PES Decision. At EU level, the day-to-day

coordination of the PES Network activities, led by the PES Secretariat and supported by

external contractors - is essential for ensuring that the activities are implemented

effectively and efficiently, while maximising synergies. Substantial efficiency gains are

generated through this dedicated function and centralised coordination. There was strong

consensus at the AFEPA workshop on the essential role and strong added value of the PES

Network Secretariat, ensuring the coordination of the governance, processes and

governance. At national level, AFEPAs play a pivotal role: as the primary liaison point

within their PES, they facilitate participation in activities, coordinate with both the

Secretariat and other AFEPAs (e.g. responding to answer PES-to-PES surveys, arranging

bilateral exchanges), and disseminate relevant information in their respective countries. In

some countries (e.g. ES), this also includes organising mutual learning with regional PES.

The key activities of the PES Network, in line with Art. 4 of the 2020 PES Decision,

form a wide-ranging and complementary set of activities, involving both top-down

information and guidance, as well as strong bottom-up engagement and peer-to-peer

mutual learning. Evidence from all consultation activities (surveys, interviews, case

studies) strongly indicates that stakeholders highly value the range and type of PES

Network activities and believe that they are highly complementary.

The findings from the consultations point to strong internal coherence. Network

members consider that the current PES Network governance structures and processes are

appropriate for achieving cooperation and supporting EU employment policy objectives160.

They also consider that the governance arrangements lead to mutual trust and interpersonal

relationships, which allow PES to reach out to other PES, even outside the formal Network

activities. The ‘layered structure’ (incorporating WG, AFEPA and Board meetings)

reportedly works well for achieving consensus, even if there can be some repetition across

levels.

Many consultees nonetheless highlighted some challenges to internal coherence.

These included the high workload placed on AFEPAs, stemming from the large number of

activities and growing national interest in the learning from the Network. Another issue

was that Network outputs are not currently translated into national languages, although

some consultees noted that this may become more feasible due to advances in AI/machine

translation. In addition, varying levels of commitment among PES in the Network were

noted.

160In the AFEPA survey (n=31), 24 respondents stated that governance structures and processes are

appropriate for achieving cooperation and supporting EU employment policy objectives to a large extent,

and a further 5 to some extent. One respondent felt that this was to a limited extent, and one further

respondent did not know. See Study Annex 8 (Figure 20).

49

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? (EU added value)

The application of the amended PES Decision generated added value, as EU-level

cooperation through the Network accelerated PES modernisation, strengthened resilience

to labour market shocks, supported the systematic uptake of effective practices, while

enabling benchmarking, mutual learning and crisis response capacities that would not have

emerged to the same extent through national action alone. In the absence of EU

intervention, structured cooperation and peer learning spaces would be lost, likely leading

to slower innovation and increased fragmentation over time, particularly for smaller and

less-resourced PES.

4.2.1 Continued need for EU level action (EQ10)

The objectives of the PES Decision are still best met by EU-level action. The structured,

EU-backed forum for European PES to learn and cooperate with each other was crucial

given that the challenges faced by PES are largely the same across Europe, including the

complex and rapidly changing geopolitical, economic, and environmental context, as

highlighted consistently by consultees across consultation activities and stakeholder types.

The evaluation found strong added value brought about through EU-level action designed

to enhance cooperation and mutual learning among PES, as evidenced in the range of

impacts and results triggered by engagement in the PES Network in PES participating

countries (see in particular sections on effectiveness (4.1.1) and efficiency (4.1.2)).

The evaluation identified that the application of the 2020 PES Decision continued to

provide added value in all areas that had already been identified in the 2019 Staff Working

Document and supporting study. In particular, the main effects of the 2020 PES Decision,

which could not have been met by action at national level alone, as identified across all

sources of evidence for this evaluation, are as follows:

Accelerated PES reform through the provision of comparative evidence and

opportunities for mutual learning. The PES Network has supported PES reform by

supplying a steady flow of comparative evidence on PES performance, peer experience,

and actionable recommendations (see EQ1b). This has enabled PES to adopt proven

service delivery models, upgrade management systems, and embed quality improvement

processes that likely would not have emerged at the same speed through national efforts

alone (see EQs 1b and 2a and examples in Study Annex 7, 10-A).

Faster and more efficient implementation of good practices and innovative

approaches through operational cooperation: EU-level cooperation ensured that

promising innovations - such as AI-supported matching, employer-segmentation models,

digital service tools, and quality-management systems - were shared more efficiently and

effectively across PES participating countries. Mutual learning enabled PES to

“copy-adapt” effective solutions rather than develop them from scratch, reducing

duplication, lowering costs and reducing risks of experimentation (see EQs 1b, 2a, 6, 7 and

examples in Study Annex 7, 10-B).

50

Box 4. Sharing tools and piloting common approaches (digitalisation, green transition and labour

shortages)

The evaluation has highlighted the Network’s potential to pilot and foster operational collaboration and

shared approaches among PES, by drawing on proven methods and consolidating resources for pilots and

innovation. Examples include:

- A common definition green skills and jobs: Between 2023 and 2025, the PES Network Taxonomies

WG worked to identify the most suitable approach to build a common definition of green jobs and

piloted it with both national and EU level taxonomies, using ESCO data. The work inspired the Swedish

PES to further advance its work by developing a comprehensive dataset for green taxonomies and the

Bulgarian PES to accelerate the development of national methodologies for defining green jobs and

skills.

- Piloting a common approach to measuring labour shortages: Throughout 2023-2025, a Focus Group

was set up to pilot and test a common approach to measuring labour shortages, exploring the use of the

ratio between job vacancies and registered job seekers as a possible common approach among PES

Network members. This approach is already used by most of the PES consulted, though with large

variations in the nature of data and the methodology.

- Sharing digital tools: The 2025 PES Work Programme provided for the piloting of an open-source

digital platform where PES could exchange expertise, pool resources and tools, and share reusable

components of IT solutions in a secure manner.

In December 2025, a dedicated space for sharing and engaging around IT assets was launched.

Stronger resilience and better crisis-response capacity across PES: PES were better

able to rapidly adapt service models, digitalise operations, and design targeted support

measures to persons displaced from Ukraine, as crisis-response knowledge circulated

quickly across the Network. This led to more coherent, timely, and effective PES responses

than would have been possible through PES working alone in fragmented, bilateral

exchanges (see EQs 1b, 2a and 14 and examples in Study Annex 7, 14-A and 14-B). While

structured cooperation to tackle increasingly common challenges was also highlighted as

an added value of the PES Decision before its renewal in 2020161, this aspect further came

to the fore in the 2021-2025 period due to consecutive crises.

Increased transparency, accountability, and understanding of PES performance:

Benchlearning is a unique EU-level mechanism for PES to understand their strengths and

weaknesses, compare themselves with peers, and access structured recommendations for

improvement. This self-reflection and peer review exercise has allowed PES to both

strengthen their own assessment culture and continued to contribute to fostering greater

EU-wide awareness of how PES are progressing over time (see EQ1a, 1b, and 2a and

example 10-C, Study Annex 7).

PES voices were more involved in EU employment policy: By speaking collectively

through the PES Network, national PES gained a stronger and more coherent voice in EU

policy debates than if they were to act individually. PES Network contributions to EU

initiatives on the Youth Guarantee, the LTU, minimum income schemes, individual

learning accounts, micro-credentials, labour mobility initiatives, and the broader European

161EUR-Lex - 52019SC1350 - EN - EUR-Lex

51

Semester process, both through a formalised consultative role (e.g. EMCO reviews) and

ad hoc consultations, contributed to ensuring that EU employment policies took into

account PES implementation realities (see EQs 3 and 7).

Broadened cooperation with labour market actors and strengthened ecosystem

collaboration: In line with Art.5 of the amended PES Decision, over the evaluation period,

the Network expanded cooperation beyond PES-to-PES exchange, reinforcing

collaboration with EU agencies, social partners, NGOs, regional actors, and EU

enlargement countries. This wider engagement helped PES align strategies, strengthen

partnerships, and access broader expertise, ultimately contributing to more

4.2.2 Impact of discontinuing the PES Decision (EQ11 and EQ12)

The short-, medium-, and long-term consequences of discontinuing the PES Decision

based on input from AFEPAs, PES heads, EMCO members, and EU stakeholders are

presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Effects of discontinuing the PES Network in the short, medium and long

term

Notes: The colours highlight the frequency of concerns, with red indicating high mention and green

lower emphasis.

In the short term, the largest concern would be the loss of structured EU-level

collaboration, dismantling the only formal platform for systematic mutual learning,

knowledge exchange, and Benchlearning among European PES. Stakeholders162 stressed

that replacing this with bilateral cooperation would demand significant extra resources -

financial and human- which many PES, particularly smaller ones, do not have. Without

EU-level coordination and financial and human resources, only few individual PES could

realistically replicate the scale, depth or methodological rigour of the evidence-based

assessment process provided by Benchlearning, affecting performance transparency and

the identification of improvement areas. Suspension of mutual learning activities would

likely also reduce opportunities for PES to exchange solutions, test innovations and

implement proven practices, slowing down knowledge transfer between and within PES,

162EU institutions and agencies, social partners, international organisations and networks, AFEPAs, Heads

of PES, EMCO/ministry representatives.

Loss of structured collaboration at European level

Slowed down knowledge transfer between and within

PES

Loss of access to quality and coherent labour market data for statistical analysis

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS (1-2 years)

Decline in development and innovation within PES

Widening divergences in capacity, performance and service quality across European PES

Weakened alignment between national reforms and EU priorities

MEDIUM-TERM EFFECTS (3-5 years)

Increased fragmention in labour market policies across Europe

Decrease in PES' capacity to respond to urgent labour market challenges

Cooperation efforts across Europe would be led only by few selected PES with greater resources

LONG-TERM EFFECTS (6+ years)

52

that would face greater risks, higher experimentation costs. Furthermore, the

discontinuation of the PES Decision would also affect the availability, coherence and

quality of data on key labour market-relevant issues, which is currently collected through

the PES Network.

In the medium term, the discontinuation of mutual learning and Benchlearning could

reduce the efficiency and quality of PES reforms and lead to a decline in development

and innovation, particularly in areas where the Network has driven progress, such as

digitalisation, AI integration, and employer services (see EQs 1 and 2). Research shows

that half of the PES Network’s outputs focus on digital transformation, with tools like

profiling systems and online services directly shaped by Benchlearning recommendations.

Without access to tried-and-tested approaches in these areas, PES would face greater risks,

higher experimentation costs and longer delays in implementing reforms. Over time, this

would widen divergences in capacity, performance and service quality, with less-resourced

PES particularly experiencing reduced access to innovation. The erosion of personal

networks would also reduce collaboration, potentially shifting cooperation toward regional

clusters and deepening uneven development across Europe. The absence of an EU-level

platform would further limit opportunities for PES to engage in EU policy dialogue and

contribute to key EU processes and policies, weakening alignment between national

reforms and EU priorities—a critical gap when coordinated responses to labour market

challenges are most needed.

In the long term, the discontinuation of the PES Decision and lack of a structured PES

Network could lead to PES adopting increasingly divergent approaches in key areas like

activation, skills matching, and digital transformation, where the Network has established

common frameworks and tools. This fragmentation would hinder PES’ ability to address

pressing challenges, including demographic shifts, skills shortages, and green/digital

transitions. There would be a decrease in PES capacity to respond to urgent labour market

challenges such as demographic shifts, persistent skills shortages, and the green and digital

transitions. In addition, during both COVID-19 and the influx of displaced persons from

Ukraine, the Network played a critical role in enabling rapid peer exchange and

coordinated adaptation (see EQs 1b, 2c, 15). Without this infrastructure, collective crisis

preparedness and responsiveness would be significantly weakened, with PES struggling to

maintain the responsiveness and anticipatory capacity that have been strengthened during

the current mandate (see EQs 1b, 2c). Cooperation between PES would become sporadic,

ad hoc and likely limited to a handful of well-resourced PES, undermining Europe’s

resilience to future crises.

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant?

4.3.1 Relevance

The amended PES Decision remained highly relevant throughout the evaluation

period, with its objectives closely aligned to persistent and emerging labour market

challenges and evolving EU policy priorities.

53

The PES Decision objectives remained relevant, allowing the Network to adapt to new

needs and challenges throughout the evaluation period. It demonstrated strong adaptability

to major shocks and structural changes - such as COVID‑19, the green and digital

transitions, and the Ukraine crisis - while continuing to address long-standing needs like

skills shortages and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

The scope of the PES Decision provides a robust and flexible framework to support PES

in addressing current and future labour market transformations, aligning with wider and

emerging EU policy priorities. Stakeholders broadly agree that its aims remain fit-for-

purpose and are likely to stay so in the future, given ongoing megatrends, and that its strong

alignment with key EU frameworks (e.g. the EPSR, Green Deal, and social inclusion

agenda) reinforces its continued relevance.

4.3.1.1 Relevance and flexibility over the implementation period (EQ13 and EQ 14)

Relevance of objectives A range of labour market challenges persisted during the implementation period,

affecting the work of all PES. Some were ongoing structural challenges, others were the

results of shocks, which required all to react fast in often unprecedented contexts, such as

COVID-19 pandemic and Russian war of aggression in Ukraine.

The objectives of the amended PES Decision remained highly relevant in this context

(See Study Annex 8, Figure 22). The PES Decision functions as a driver for integrated and

effective solutions, with its objectives forming a shared foundation that is relevant in

supporting national PES to improve their services and address labour market needs.

Stakeholders consider the objectives to be logically structured and suitably pitched to

address challenges. In contrast to the findings of the 2019 evaluation163, stakeholders raised

no concerns about the hierarchy or level of generality of the objectives.

The general objective of cooperation and mutual learning, and the specific objective of

facilitating mutual assistance and uptake of good practices remained relevant to a large

extent in addressing both types of challenges (See Study Annex 8, Figure 22). The

objectives of facilitating mutual learning and the uptake of good practices were also

particularly relevant in the context of budgetary constraints and rising expectations on PES

performance throughout the evaluation period. Multiple AFEPAs highlighted that practical

learning tools such as toolkits MAPs and good practices helped accelerate ‘copy-adapt’

processes, reducing duplication of work and shortening the time from design to

implementation. The approach to PES service delivery continued to change during 2021-

2025, with an ongoing move towards increased digitalisation, accelerated initially by the

COVID-19 pandemic and propelled further by the rapid expansion of AI and the challenges

and opportunities around integrating AI into PES services164.

The objective of the PES Network to contribute to the modernisation and strengthening

of PES remained highly relevant in this context, as it allowed the Network to provide

tangible support on key modernisation fronts. In this context, the broad scope of the PES

Decision provides a robust and flexible framework to support PES in addressing current

163 EUR-Lex - 52019SC1350 - EN - EUR-Lex 164 A new dawn for public employment services: Service delivery in the age of artificial intelligence.

54

and future labour market transformations and aligning with wider and emerging EU policy

priorities. The study identified similarly positive findings on the objective of assessing

and increasing transparency of PES performance through Benchlearning. Facilitating

comparability and accountability of the PES through Benchlearning remained relevant

particularly considering that key structural challenges impacting the work of the PES

persist over multiple years, with Benchlearning providing a consistent framework over

longer periods of time to assess progress on these issues.

The specific objective to support policy development and implementation at EU level

by offering the experience of PES was viewed as less relevant compared to the other

specific objectives across the consultations with the lowest number of respondents

indicating it was relevant to a large extent (Study Annex 8, Figure 22). AFEPA survey

respondents and interviewees recognised the relevance of a bottom-up feedback channel

through which PES can share day-to-day operational experience to inform EU policies but

also noted that, in practice, this type of feedback cannot be a main driver of EU-level policy

design.

Flexibility and adaption to change

The Decision allowed flexibility and remains adequate for upcoming challenges (EQ14).

The PES Network was able to adapt to changes over the implementation period to a

high degree, providing PES with relevant support to respond to newer labour market

challenges. Stakeholders considered the Network flexible and responsive to evolving needs

and challenges. Of the 31 respondents, 24 considered the PES Network to be flexible to a

large extent in both performing supporting efforts to integrate displaced Ukrainians into

the workforce and adapting to the labour market impacts ofthe COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, 15 respondents valued the Network’s degree of flexibility in supporting the

development of green skills and 14 in addressing skills and labour shortages to a large

extent (See more in Study Annex 8, Figure 23).

This was notably enabled by the joint planning process for the strategy and work

programmes of the PES Network, which allow members to propose new priorities, and by

the objectives of the PES Decision, which are broad enough to encompass activities across

a range of thematic areas. Evidence regarding the PES Network’s ability to adapt to

changes throughout the implementation period is presented in the table below.

The broad scope of the PES Decision’s objectives, together with its general and specific

objectives (as set out in Arts. 3 and 4), continue to provide a relevant framework for

tackling ongoing and upcoming challenges in the EU labour market.

4.3.1.2 Relevance to potential future challenges and new policy priorities (EQ 15 and

EQ16)

The PES Decision’s objectives continue to correspond closely to wider and emerging

EU policy goals and priorities, including:

European Employment Strategy (EES): Although the PES Decision does not explicitly

reference the EES, its objectives align with the aim of the EES to coordinate EU countries’

55

reform efforts in labour market-and social policies through Benchlearning, monitoring and

best practice exchange, rather than legislation.

European Semester: the PES Network Chair is regularly invited to speak at EMCO

meetings while the EMCO Chairs participate in the Network’s Board meetings as

observers (see EQ3 and EQ7).

European Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan: The European Pillar of Social Rights

and its Action Plan are supported by the PES Decision, which provides a framework for

activities contributing to the Pillar’s principles and 2030 headline targets (see Study Annex

7, 16-A). PES Benchlearning data collected annually under Article 4 of the amended PES

Decision — including data on unemployment, inactivity, vacancies filled, and customer

satisfaction with PES services — is also highly relevant for wider EU employment and

social inclusion objectives. Between 2024-2025, the PES Network enhanced synergies

with the Labour Market Policy (LPM) database to improve the relevance and operational

of this data and provide closer alignment with the LMP database. This could further

support cross-validation to improve data quality, enable more detailed analysis of PES-

coordinated ALMP measures and, crucially, consolidation of data delivery to reduce the

burden on data providers.

The transition towards a climate-neutral and digital economy: PES will be

increasingly required to provide tailored support to help workers and employers navigate

the creation of new professionals, transformation of existing roles and the increasing

demand of green and digital skills165 the objectives of the Decision are very likely to

remain relevant to these developments, as the need for PES to learn from peers at

operational level will remain acute (See section 4.3.1.1.).

The technological developments: Impacted by the objective of fostering cooperation and

mutual learning and how the Network operates166 Consultees particularly

highlighted process automation in profiling and job matching and the use of AI-based

applications for HR and recruitment as new developments which will require PES to

rapidly adapt the way they offer their services. The PES Network has already adapted its

work to address these challenges (See section 4.3.1.1.). The relevance of the PES Decision

is only likely to increase, as PES will require opportunities to learn from each other at

operational level on how to transform their services.

The demographic and labour market challenges: Demographic shifts will continue to

progressively exacerbate skills and labour shortages across sectors167. There was broad

consensus across interviewees (29 respondents of the AFEPA Survey between to a large

and to some extent, (See Study Annex 8, Figure 24) and workshop participants that

ensuring PES can adapt their services to support both the working population to develop

165Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 166Trends in PES – Assessment report on PES Capacity - 2025 167ELA Report on Labour Shortages and Surpluses in Europe 2023. EURES

56

the right skills and employers to find workers matching their evolving needs warrants

active and continued collaboration among PES in the years to come.

Competitiveness: European competitiveness is likely to remain a key EU priority, with

skills shortages identified as one of the main obstacles to overcome168. Of the 31

respondents of the AFEPA survey, 29 confirmed the continued relevance of the PES

Network’s objectives (to a large and to some extend) for addressing competitiveness

challenges (See Study Annex 8, Figure 24), with all 22 respondents to the

EMCO/ministries survey agreeing that these objectives will remain relevant in the future

(See Study Annex 8, Figure 33). Strengthening skills intelligence, development, and

matching capabilities, and enhancing cooperation with other labour market stakeholders

and employers will therefore be essential.169 Interviewees and AFEPA workshop

participants confirmed the continued relevance of EU-level collaboration in dealing with

these challenges.

168The Draghi report on EU competitiveness 169Empowering the Workforce in the Context of a Skills-First Approach | OECD

57

5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?

5.1 Conclusions

In 2021-2025, the PES Network implemented a wide range of activities and produced an

extensive portfolio of outputs, to support PES in a changing labour market. This section

summarises the evaluation’s findings and conclusions on the implementation of the PES

Decision, in line with the five criteria set out in the Better Regulation guidelines.

Effectiveness - Under the Decision, the PES Network continued to strengthen cooperation,

mutual learning, and PES modernisation, enhancing transparency and contributing EU

policymaking. Benchlearning improved performance transparency and organisational

change, though limited dissemination reduced external stakeholder transparency. TLDs

and MAPs advanced performance management, digitalisation, and vulnerable group

support, but capacity constraints and national priorities slowed implementation. While the

Network expanded contributions to EU policy development, visibility remains an area for

improvement.

Efficiency - The PES Decision’s application has been cost-effective, with annual costs

reduced due to in particular to increased digital tools. PES resource investments varied but

were considered proportionate. Benchlearning and mutual learning delivered high value

for money, accelerating reforms and reducing duplication.

Coherence - The Decision is coherent with EU employment policies and funding

instruments, as well as complementing broader areas such as labour migration and green

and digital transitions. Synergies with EU agencies increased, though further

improvements are possible. The Decision supports national employment policies and

demonstrates strong internal coherence.

EU added value - The amended PES Decision generated significant EU added value,

accelerating reforms through comparative evidence and peer learning, while enhancing

crisis response capacity. Discontinuation would imply risks such as slower innovation,

wider disparities, and weaker policy coherence.

Relevance - The Decision’s objectives remained relevant and fit for new challenges, with

the Network addressing challenges such as COVID-19, labour shortages, and the green

transition through adaptive activities and participatory work programmes.

5.2 Lessons learned / Suggestions for improvement

Overall, the findings confirm a high degree of continuity with the 2019 evaluation, while

pointing to clear improvements in cooperation, coherence and the maturity of the Network.

The PES Network has consolidated its role, increased its relevance and impact over time,

and is highly valued by both members and external stakeholders.

The evaluation of the PES Network’s activities provides several important lessons that can

guide its future strategic direction.

58

Enhancing transparency of Benchlearning outcomes - There is scope to increase

transparency and coherence by further disseminating Benchlearning outcomes beyond the

Network while ensuring it remains a safe space for sharing sensitive information.

Stepping up operational cooperation on strategic priorities - The Network has done

extensive work to foster common strategic approaches and could support further

operational cooperation on priorities such as digitalisation and performance measurement

frameworks.

Strengthening and prioritising contributions to EU policymaking - The Network has

increased efforts to contribute to EU policymaking, with opportunities to further deepen

and prioritise its sphere of contributions, in consultation with PES.

Further synergies with EU labour mobility initiatives - The Network has stepped up

contributions to policy areas, with scope for further synergies with in particular EURES,

EESSI, and Europass.

Potential further efficiency gains - Limited scope remains for further efficiencies, such

as a unified knowledge hub or streamlined decision-making processes, stronger synergies

with EU agencies in analytical work. New technologies may also increasingly provide

cost-effective solutions for greater accessibility of activities and deliverables.

Building PES capacity and optimising EU funding - The Network promotes synergies

with EU could further support PES in accessing and making the best use of the ESF+, TSI,

RRF, and post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework opportunities.

Developing systematic monitoring and KPIs - A more systematic monitoring framework

with KPIs would allow the Network to systematically measure results over time and make

the necessary adjustments to ensure continued impact and cost-effectiveness.

Ensuring continuity - The current PES Decision is broad and flexible enough to address

new challenges, and discontinuation would represent a significant loss in support for the

ongoing development of European PES and their contribution to a well-functioning labour

market Providing greater long-term stability of the Network would contribute to

administrative simplification, by removing the need for periodic renewal of an established

and well-functioning structure.

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) is the lead for the evaluation of Decision

No 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public Employment Services (PES).

The Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines were followed to carry out the evaluation without

deviations.

The evaluation draws on a study commissioned from an external contractor (Ecorys), initiated in June

2025 and conducted over twelve months. The evaluation timeframe covers the period from the entry

into force of Decision (EU) 2020/1782 on 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2025.

Data have been collected from several sources, and both quantitative and qualitative methods have

been used, including: Desk based research and literature review; Mapping of inputs, outputs, results

and impacts of the PES Network; Country case studies (BG, DE, ES, FI, LT, SI), Stakeholder

consultations (EU-level interviews, two targeted surveys to AFEPAs and two workshops with

Advisors for European PES Affairs and Heads of PES and a cost effectiveness analysis. A call for

evidence was launched in November 2025 until 26 December 2026.

60

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED

This section sets out in detail the methodological approach used in the evaluation.

This evaluation aimed to gather robust evidence on the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added

value and relevance of the implementation of the amended PES Decision. In order to understand these

elements, the findings needed to address the following overarching evaluation

questions, corresponding to the different evaluation criteria:

• To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

• How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom

• Is the intervention still relevant?

• What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

The methodological approach was thus designed to combine the appropriate methods to enhance the

robustness of results. The figure below presents an overview of the evaluation methodology and the

different Tasks, showing the way in which the evaluation team conceived the interconnections

between the Tasks to ensure gathering all the complementary evidence needed

to provide comprehensive answers to the evaluation questions.

Figure 1: Overview of the Evaluation methodology

1.Task 0: Inception

1.1 Preliminary Literature Review

During the inception phase, the list of literature sources presented was reviewed. The evaluation team

mapped additional sources by targeting gaps in the initial selection and consulting additional data

sources shared by DG EMPL and the external contractors supporting the work of the PES

Network. This included the use of keywords to narrow down the sources (e.g. ‘PES

Network’, ‘PES’, ‘Public Employment Services’, ‘employment services’). In particular, the

preliminary literature review focused on:

• Mapping contextual information relevant to the work of the PES Network, including EU-

levellegislation, strategic documents on EU initiatives and relevant evaluation studies and

61

reports produced by EU institutions and key stakeholders, as well as statistical data on labour

market evolutions;

• Gathering sources for the mapping of PES Network inputs, activities, outputs, results and

impacts, including documents related to PES Network governance (e.g., PES Work

Programmes, meeting minutes of the PES Network Board), as well as outputs resulting from

its activities (e.g., Benchlearning, mutual learning, etc.). This included

gathering further qualitative and quantitative data sources from DG EMPL that are not in the

public domain, as follows:

o Materials from PES Network Board and AFEPA meetings (e.g. presentations, briefing

notes, meeting agendas);

o Materials from the Benchlearning WG meetings (e.g. presentations, meeting agendas,

meeting minutes, operational conclusions; briefing notes);

o Materials from the PES Benchlearning statisticians' meetings e.g. presentations, meeting

agendas, meeting minutes);

o Benchlearning quantitative data reports 2019-2024.

o Benchlearning qualitative assessments (e.g. PES Summary Reports from the 3rd, and

4th Benchlearning cycles);

o Materials from TLDs (e.g. individual and general feedback reports);

o Benchlearning quantitative data 2010-2024.

The preliminary review helped to refine the evaluation matrix and research questions. This

review also laid the foundations for the subsequent Tasks of the evaluation, with the following aims:

• To support with the identification of sources for Task 1 (Mapping);

• To assist the research on the national level to be undertaken for Task 2 (Country case

studies);

• To finetune the data collection tools for Task 3 (Stakeholder consultation activities),

ensuring in particular that the interview guides and survey questionnaires ask specific

questions on aspects which are not sufficiently covered by existing datasets;

• To assess the availability and quality of quantitative financial data on the PES Network

for Task 4 (Cost-effectiveness analysis).

The preliminary literature review gathered a total of 60 documents, including EU-level legislative and

strategic documents and a longlist of 65 sources of statistical indicators relevant to understand the

socio-economic context in which the PES Network and individual PES operate, to be analysed as part

of sub-task 2.2 (Mapping of other data relevant to the PES Network). Documents and statistical sources

were collected and reviewed with the use of a purpose-designed Excel screening tool. The screening

tool helped to categorise documentary sources according to author, type of source, geographical scope,

and year of publication. Sources were also screened for information on the following aspects:

1. PES/PES Network-specific information or information on the broader socio-economic

context in which the PES Network operates;

2. Evidence of the PES Network’s impact;

3. Focus on specific themes or target groups relevant to the PES Network;

62

4. Relevance to the objectives and activities of the PES Network, as outlined in Articles 3 and 4

of the amended PES Network Decision.

The overall relevance of each source to the objectives of the evaluation was rated across a scale of

low-medium-high, based on the above criteria.

In addition, during the preliminary literature review, a list of sources of information on PES Network

outputs, activities, inputs, results and impacts, to be further analysed as part of Sub-task 2.1 (Mapping

of PES Network inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts) was developed. A mapping

matrix was set up to record information on PES Network outputs, related activities, as well as evidence

of any results or impacts achieved on the ground, and data on (human and financial) resources invested

(where available). This preliminary research identified 345 outputs, and the mapping matrix was

partially completed with basic information on each output.

1.2 Scoping Interviews and training session

During the Inception phase, three scoping interviews were carried out. The following stakeholders

were interviewed:

• Four DG EMPL staff members part of the PES Network Secretariat to gather insights on the

overall functioning and management of the PES Network and its activities;

• Two senior representatives of the external contractor in charge of supporting the PES

Network Benchlearning activity (EY), to gather insights on the management and

implementation of Benchlearning process, including challenges and success factors;

• Two senior representatives of the external contractor in charge of supporting PES Network

Mutual Learning Activities (ICF); to gather insights on the range Mutual Learning activities

implemented by the Network, including challenges and success factors.

These interviews were carried out in parallel to the preliminary desk research and complemented the

inception research with further insights from European Commission representatives involved in

coordinating, managing and interacting with the PES Network and its work in various ways and

provided valuable insights and access to data on the implementation of the PES Network Decision to

date. Specifically, the interviews:

• Gathered insights from EU policymakers on the PES Network Decision’s aims and objectives,

to sense-check and refine the draft intervention logic of the evaluation.

• Clarified the way the PES Network is managed and coordinated by the PES Network

Secretariat in DG EMPL

• Identified additional sources that would be useful for the evaluation, in particular sources not

publicly available on the inputs to PES Network (financial data if available) as well as data

from the work of the PES Network (Benchmarking indicators categorised and assessed under

Task 1).

• Gathered insights on the role and visibility of the PES Network within DG EMPL and its

coherence with other DG EMPL-led EU policy initiatives.

• Obtained initial insights on the outputs, results and impacts of the PES Network from experts

involved in the day-to-day coordination and management of the Network.

63

Furthermore, the evaluation team attended a training session on the Benchlearning methodology on 4

September 2025, organised and delivered by the European Commission’s external contractors in

charge of supporting the PES Network’s Benchlearning activities (EY and Alphametrics).

The findings of the scoping interviews and the training session helped to lay the foundations of the

evaluation and contributed to the refinement of the methodology and research tools. This included

finetuning and sense-checking the intervention logic, identify key lines of enquiry to probe in the

surveys, and helped to finalise the selection of countries for the case studies, and key stakeholder

groups to consult as part of the interview programme.

1.3 Refinement of methodology and task preparation

Based on the discussions at the kick-off meeting, the inception meeting, and the preliminary desk

research, the evaluation methodology and tools were refined and included the updated versions in the

revised Inception report. The main changes made are indicated in the Table below.

Table 1. Main Revision undertaken during the inception phase

Section-task Main methodological changes

Evaluation matrix

• Evaluation matrix revised, to tailor further the scope of the

evaluation and address comments made by the ISG/DG EMPL,

reviewing sub-questions and indicators.

Intervention logic • Intervention logic revised.

Mapping (Task 1)

• Matrix for Mapping of PES Network inputs, activities, outputs,

results and impacts qualitative data developed and partially pre-

filled

Country case studies (Task 2)

• Revised criteria for the selection of case evaluation countries (e.g.

• Selection of case evaluation countries and rationale updated (BG;

DE; ES; FI; LT; SI)

• Revised list of topics to be tackled by the country case studies

Consultation strategy

and tools (Task 3)

• Revised research tools and two interview guides developed

(AFEPAs/Heads of PES/EMCO chairs and EU and

international organisations)

• List of interviewees updated, and details of contact persons added

• Revised survey questionnaires (AFEPAs and EMCO/ministries)

Cost-effectiveness

analysis methodology (Task 4)

• Method updated to include further details on the Contingent

Valuation Method

Answering the evaluation

questions (Task 5)

• Method updated to indicate that the possibility of a virtual Policy

Delphi to be assessed at the interim stage

Work plan • Work plan updated to reflect agreed dates for the workshops with

AFEPAs and Heads of PES

2.Task 1: Mapping

Task 1 aimed to identify, map and systematically collect all relevant data concerning the inputs,

activities, outputs, results and impacts of the PES Network, as well as other relevant data related to the

work and objectives of the PES Network.

64

2.1 Mapping of PES Network inputs, activities, outputs results and impacts

The objective is to identify, map and systematically collect all relevant data concerning the inputs,

activities, outputs, results and impacts of the PES Network. PES Network activities were grouped

under six categories, broadly corresponding to the strands of work outlined in Article 4

of PES Decision 573/2014/EU as amended by Decision (EU) 2020/1782:

• Benchlearning activities allowing PES to regularly assess their performance against

qualitative and quantitative indicators under a shared Excellence model;

• Mutual learning activities to disseminate the knowledge and lessons learned accumulated by

the various strands of work of the PES Network and support learning and development

among PES;

• Reporting and analytical activities coveringa wide range of learning resources and

publications and research activities;

• Communication activities, promoting PES Network activities and outputs towards

both Network members and external stakeholders;

• Governance and ecosystem activities supporting the overall functioning and management of

the PES Network, and fostering information exchange among stakeholders in the employment

ecosystem;

• Other cooperation activities, covering the Network’s cooperation with a wide range of

stakeholders, as well as additional internal cooperation activities promoting knowledge

sharing on specific issues among the Network’s members.

Individual PES Network outputs were then classified under these six categories of activities, as agreed

with DG EMPL at Inception stage. The categorisation of PES Network activities and outputs is set

out in Figure 2 below.

Table 2. Categorisation of PES Network activities and outputs

Benchlearning

activities

• TLDs

• Quantitative Benchlearning mate

rials

• Benchlearning study

visits/reports

• Learning materials

Communication

activities

• News articles and

newsletters

• PES Podcasts

• PES videos

• LinkedIn webpage

• Communication

campaign

Mutual learning

activities

• Seminars

• Study visits

• Surveys

• WGs

• TRWs

• Webinars

• Jour Fixe

• PES Practices

• MAPs

• Assessment activities

Governance activities

• Internal meetings

• Stakeholder conferences

• Work

programmes

Reporting and

analytical

activities

• PES Factsheets

• Reports, studies and

other publications

• Thematic papers

Cooperation activities

• PES-to-PES surveys

• Partnership and / or

cooperation activities

• Other

65

• Toolkits

• Internal meetings

• PES Capacity reports

To map PES Network outputs produced during the evaluation period (2021-2025) against these six

categories, a mapping matrix was designed to allow the evaluation team to gather a vast amount of

data in a systematic and organised way, and to support the analysis needed to answer the evaluation

questions (Task 5). The mapping tool was structured as an Excel matrix, designed to compile data for

all outputs (as rows) against a specific set of information aligned to the evaluation

questions indicated in the evaluation matrix (as columns). The tool was designed to adequately capture

the range of outputs of the PES Network, including thematic areas that are not explicitly mentioned in

the PES Decision such as responding to external crises/trends (COVID-19 pandemic, Russian war of

aggression against Ukraine, skills shortages etc.) More specifically, the mapping matrix served as a

tool to gather information under the following headings and sub-headings for each output mapped:

• Basic information: Basic information was mapped, including the output name, the activity

type it relates to (e.g. Benchlearning, mutual learning, report and analytical

activities, communication activities, PES Network governance activities), the output

type (e.g. events, reports, news items, annual reports, work programmes), the year of delivery,

the geographical coverage, the link to the resource and a short description of the output;

• Links to the objectives of the 2020 PES Decision: The mapping identified which of the PES

Network general objectives and specific the output was relevant. The list of

general objectives and specific objectives were revised to ensure alignment with the revised

intervention logic.

• Thematic area: Theme covered by the output to allow to understand at a glance the main topic

addressed. This included sixteen thematic areas, identified on the basis of themes addressed in

Arts. 3 and 4 of the PES Decision as amended in 2020, and challenges affecting the labour

market and PES over the evaluation period as outlined the intervention logic for this evaluation

), as follows: access to labour market for the most vulnerable / excluded, decent and sustainable

work, better functioning and inclusiveness of the labour market, gender equality, identification

of skills shortages and better supply-demand matching, better integration of labour markets,

labour market mobility, assessment of ALM initiatives, promoting skills development and

lifelong learning, supporting employers, improving the overall management of PES, ensuring

quality service delivery, taking-up innovation and digital solutions, PES Staff development and

training, and improving PES visibility and branding. Researchers could also include other

thematic areas as a free text option;

• Relevance to trends/crises: this indicated whether the output is relevant to trends/crises

encountered (i.e., demographic change and ageing, rapid tech developments, COVID-19

pandemic, Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, labour / skills shortages, low training

participation, activation of inactive, and digital/green jobs and new forms of work). These stem

from the external factors listed in the intervention logic;

• Geographical coverage: The countries involved in a given output were listed as appropriate

(i.e. only for PES Network outputs where country participation was relevant);

66

• Inputs: Where available, the actual or estimated human and financial resources required for

the delivery of the output were indicated. Evidence on inputs was primarily gathered

through financial data provided by DG EMPL. Most of this information came in the form of

aggregate numbers – i.e. estimations by type of activity.;

• Evidence of results and impacts: Where available, information on the number of

downloads/accesses/views (for outputs published or delivered online), the number of

participants (for outputs involving participation), and the number of best practices shared (if

any), was recorded. Additionally, evidence on identified results and impacts of the specific

output was included, primarily based on insights gathered through the consultation activities

(Task 3) and the country case studies (Task 2);

Throughout the evaluation, all documents and resources that contributed to or resulted from the PES

Network activities were systematically collected, compiled, and analysed to provide information to

populate the mapping matrix. A total of 653 outputs produced from 1 January 2021 were

mapped in the matrix. This was achieved through a comprehensive literature review and desk research

to ensure that all available secondary data on the PES Network inputs, activities, outputs, results and

impacts, was mapped in the matrix, and its relevance assessed. In particular, the evaluation team:

• Conducted a comprehensive review of the PES Network website and other relevant platforms

and repositories (e.g. PES Network Knowledge Centre, PES Practices repository, PES Network

Dashboard, Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses

and Citizens (CIRCABC)) as well as of the relevant official European Commission webpages,

extracting all data publicly and non-publicly available.

• Gained access from the European Commission (PES Network Secretariat) and their external

contractors to documents and resources not publicly available (e.g. data on financial inputs to

the PES Network, participation in PES Network activities, monitoring reports).

The mapping matrix was filled out through a thorough review and analysis of the content of each

output mapped to identify key themes, labour market trends and topics addressed in the output as well

as to identify the (general and specific) objectives of the amended PES Decision which the output

contributed to achieving. In instances where certain topics or objectives were covered to differing

degrees, this was reflected in the mapping through the use of colour coding. This classification exercise

was further complemented with the findings from the primary research undertaken as part of the case

studies (Task 2), and stakeholder consultation activities (workshops, interviews, and targeted surveys)

(Task 3), with results identified in these activities then mapped to the corresponding output in the

mapping matrix.

A list of the information that was mapped and analysed and examples of sources to identify this

information is presented in the table below.

Table 3. Examples of information mapped and sources used

Category Examples of information mapped Examples of sources

Inputs

• Number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) at

the European Commission

• Financial resources allocated to the

governance and operation of the PES

Network by 1) the European Commission

• PES Network Secretariat financial input data

67

(including via contractors) and 2) national

authorities (as available)

Activities

and

outputs

Mutual learning activities

• Reports, publications, thematic papers,

studies, thematic reviews, policy documents

(outputs of activities such as WGs, MAPs,

TRW

s, Seminars, Webinars, Jour Fixe and study

visits)

• PES Practices published in the PES Practice

Repository

• PES Website and PES Knowledge Centre

• PES Network Annual reports

• PES Network Work Programmes

• Repository of PES Practices

• CIRCABC

Benchlearning activities

• Benchlearning models and methodologies

• TLDs

• Benchlearning assessment reports and

recommendations

• PES Network Benchlearning Manuals

• Main outcomes of the 3rd cycle of

PES Benchlearning (overall reports, PES

summary reports)

• Main outcomes of the 4th cycle of

PES Benchlearning (overall reports, PES

summary reports)

• Annual quantitative data collection and

analysis gathered via

the Benchlearning exercise (3rd and 4th

cycle)

• Qualitative assessments collected within

the Benchlearning exercise (PES self-

assessment reports, overall assessment

reports)

• Quantitative assessment reports

• TLDs (General Feedback reports, Individual

Feedback reports)

Reporting and analytical activities

• Reports and studies produced

• Evaluations of active labour market

initiatives carried out

• Reports, Toolkits and position papers

published in the PES Knowledge Centre

• PES Network Knowledge Centre and PES

Network outputs therein

Communication activities

• News articles, newsletters, events,

PES pods and videos

• PES Network Newsletters

• News items

• Videos

• PES Network post-event reports

• PESPod episodes

• PES Network LinkedIn Group

Governance and ecosystem activities

• Internal meetings (e.g. board and AFEPAs

meetings)

• Work programmes, annual reports and

activity reports

• Input documents to the PES Network Board

and to the Meeting of the AFEPA. AFEPAs,

produced with the support of the Network

Secretariat

• Meeting minutes of the PES Network Board

(and related news articles) and meeting

minutes of AFEPA meetings

• Reports from PES Network Stakeholder

Conferences

Cooperation activities

68

• Partnerships and cooperation activities with

relevant labour market stakeholders

• Contribution to the

European Labour Market Barometer

• Partnerships and cooperation activities

between PES Network members (i.e. PES

to PES surveys)

• PES Network Annual reports

• PES Network Work Programmes

• European Labour Market Barometer

Results

and

impacts

• Evidence on the level of cooperation

between PES, including bilateral

cooperation

• Evidence of the extent to

which Benchlearning activities

helped identify best practices and

development areas

• Evidence of the implementation

of Benchlearning assessment

recommendations leading to measurable

improvements

• Evidence of the extent to which mutual

learning activities helped identify best

practices and development areas for PES

• Evidence of the extent to which mutual

learning activities led to the uptake of good

practices by PES

• Evidence of the effectiveness of PES

Network communication activities in

raising awareness of its outputs and results

• Reports on PES capacity and reports on PES

implementation of the Youth Guarantee and

PES services for LTU

• Results of the targeted stakeholder (AFEPA/

Heads of PES) consultations

• Meeting minutes of the PES Network Board

(and related news articles) and meeting

minutes of AFEPA meetings

• Monitoring and evaluation activities in regard

to the activities compiled by contractors who

support the implementation of the Network's

work programme

• Other testimonials of the Network

members (e.g. shared as part of the PES

Network 10 years anniversary campaign; posts

in PES Network LinkedIn Group)

• 2019 evaluation of Decision 573/2014/EU on

enhanced cooperation between Public

Employment Services

The evaluation team also gained access to benchmarking data gathered through

relevant Benchlearning cycles and available on the PES Network Dashboard. This data was structured

within one comparable file, allowing for benchmarking data to be disaggregated by country and

(sub)indicators. The benchmarking data was provided to the National Experts to support the

development of the country case studies (Task 2), and used as part of the main report to support the

analysis of how labour market trends and the work of PES evolved during the evaluation period

Benchmarking data was not used as evidence of the impact of the PES Decision since it is not possible

to establish a direct causal link between the work of the PES Network and broader labour

market dynamics.

2.2 Mapping of other data relevant to the work and objectives of the PES Network

Based on the preliminary literature review conducted at Inception stage the evaluation team continued

to map and assess relevant literature and policy documents, as well as statistical data on the labour

market evolution for the period considered for this evaluation. This data contributed to the evidence

base and the analysis for the evaluation, in particular by supporting the evaluation team to:

• Identify additional contextual qualitative and quantitative data to understand the context in

which the 2020 PES Decision was implemented.

• Provide evidence to further define the points of comparison.

• Support the assessment of the coherence of the PES Decision by identifying and analysing

related EU employment and social policy initiatives.

A total of 106 EU-level resources were gathered, including policy and legislative documents,

strategies, evaluations, studies, and other publications. The most relevant resources gathered were

analysed and triangulated with evidence coming from the rest of the research tasks (Sub-task 1.1., Task

2, Task 3, and Task 4) to answer the evaluation questions as part of Task 5.

69

Moreover, the evaluation team gathered statistical data relevant to the evaluation, notably labour

market indicators and indicators on specific needs to be addressed by PES. This data sought to inform

the socio-economic context in which the 2020 PES Decision was implemented; support the

contextualisation of the PES Network results and impacts, as relevant; feed into the data to be further

analysed by the National Experts and presented in the six country case studies. A total of 65 datasets

from across different sources (e.g. Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, Cedefop) related to labour market

indicators relevant to the work of PES and the PES Network were identified and mapped. The table

below includes selected examples of these.

Table 4. Examples of Indicators Mapped

Indicator Source

Income and living conditions

Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex Eurostat (EU-SILC)

In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate by age and sex Eurostat (EU-SILC)

In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate by type of contract Eurostat (EU-SILC)

Employment and activity (incl. unemployment and labour market transitions)

Employment and activity by sex and age - annual data Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Unemployment by sex and age - annual data Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Part-time employment as percentage of the total employment, by sex and age (%) Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Part-time employment and temporary contracts - annual data Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Transition from unemployment to employment by sex, age and duration of

unemployment Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Long-term unemployment by sex and age - annual data Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Young people neither in employment nor in education and training (NEET), by sex

and age Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Inactive population as a percentage of the total population, by sex and age (%) Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Job vacancy rate Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Labour force growth (% annual rate) by country Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Employment growth (% annual rate) by country Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

Job openings (absolute numbers) by country Cedefop Skills Forecast

Job vacancies by sector Eurostat

Job vacancies by country Eurostat

Education and training (incl. skills)

Population by educational attainment level, sex and age (%) Eurostat

Participation rate in education and training (last 12 months) by

sex, age and labour status Eurostat

Participation rate in education and training by educational attainment level Eurostat

Employment rates of young persons NEET since completion of highest level of

education Eurostat

70

Basic digital skills (% of individuals) Eurostat (Digital Economy and

Society Index (DESI))

Above basic digital skills (% of individuals) Eurostat (Digital Economy and

Society Index (DESI))

3.Task 2: Country Case Studies

Task 2 consisted of the development of six country case studies contributing to assessing the

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, added value, and relevance of the PES Decision at the national

level. The case studies were developed through consultation with individual PES as well

as other national stakeholders, exploring how they engage with and perceive the PES Network.

The case studies aimed to provide evidence on:

• Actions taken at national / regional / local level(s) in response to the PES Decision and PES

Network activities, including Benchlearning activities.

• The impact PES Network activities have had on the activities and performance of individual

PES.

• The influence PES Network activities have had on the development and implementation of

national employment policies and initiatives.

• The contribution of the PES Network to increased cooperation between PES.

• The influence that PES Network activities have had on the implementation of EU employment

policies and initiatives at the national level.

• The costs associated with involvement in the PES Network at the national level and for

individual PES, and the degree to which these costs are proportionate to the benefits.

The countries for the case studies were selected using 12 selection criteria. These included:

• General indicators related to contextual factor, to ensure that the case study sample would

include a balanced set of countries, taking into account key contextual characteristics.

• Indicators specifically related to PES characteristics and performance, to ensure a variety of

organisations.

The following table provides a detailed list of the criteria used to select the six case study countries.

Table 6. Selection criteria for case study countries

Selection criteria Detailed sub-criteria

General indicators

Geography

• Northern Europe

• Central and Eastern Europe

• Southern Europe

• Western Europe

Population size

• Up to 2 million

• 2-6 million

• 6-15 million

• >15 million

Economic development

• less than 0% real GDP growth

• % - 1.5% real GDP growth

• 1.5% - 3% real GDP growth

• > 3% real GDP growth

71

Unemployment rate

• less than 4%

• between 4% and 5.5%

• between 5.5% and 7%

• >7%

Job vacancy rate

• less than 1%

• between 1% and 2%

• between 2% and 3%

• > 3%

PES-specific indicators

PES legal structure

• Independent public institution with a Management Board

• Independent public institutions with local or regional authorities

responsible at their administrative level

• PES integrated into the responsible Ministry

• PES integrated into the responsible Ministry with regional

organisations operating at their administrative level

• PES integrated into the responsible Ministry with regional

organisations operating under a different Ministry

Trends in PES

expenditure

• Increased spending based on latest PES capacity report

• Decreased spending based on latest PES capacity report

PES maturity

• Developable

• Developing

• Well-developed

• Mature

Opportunity for

comparison

• Extent to which countries had participated both in the 3rd and

4th Benchlearning cycle, covered by the evaluation period.

Some ‘second-tier’ indicators were considered to ensure a wide representation of country contexts in

the case studies. These ‘second-tier’ indicators included taking into account the existing

responsibilities of individual PES, to ensure that the case study selection would include examples from

PES with different remits. Additionally, the gender employment gap in 2024 was reviewed for each

country, reflecting the introduction of a focus on gender in the 2020 PES Decision.

The application of the selection criteria led to the selection of six Member States, as outlined in the

table below, reflecting a balanced variety of countries with different PES set-ups.

72

Table 5. Case study selection and rationale

Country Reasons for inclusion

Bulgaria

• Central and Eastern countries with a mid-sized population, a medium-high GDP growth rate,

medium-low unemployment rate, and a low job vacancy rate.

• Increase in PES expenditure between 2021-2022, with the PES being assessed as ‘developing’

in terms of overall maturity. After completing its 3rd Benchlearning cycle in 2021,

Bulgaria participated in the 4th cycle in 2024.

• The National Employment Agency (NEA) is structured as an independent public institution

with a Management Board, the most common PES structure across the EU.

• NEA is fully responsible for providing individualised and follow-up assistance to the

unemployed, and for managing ALMPs.

• NEA is also partially responsible for supporting employers managing mass redundancies and

registering private employment agencies.

• NEA provides guidance to young people in their final two years of secondary education, and

issues work permits to third-country nationals.

• Bulgaria shows a significant percentage of outflows (above 70%) as well as one of the highest

shares of inflows of nationals (43%) across the EU.

• Bulgaria shows an increase in PES expenditure between 2021-2022, with the PES being

assessed as ‘developing’ in terms of overall maturity. After completing its 3rd Benchlearning

cycle in 2021, Bulgaria participated in the 4th cycle in 2024.

Finland

• Northern European country with a medium-low population size. Finland recorded a low GDP

growth in 2024, high unemployment, and a medium-low job vacancy rate.

• Decreased PES expenditure between 2021-2023, and overall ‘developing’ maturity status of

‘developing’.

• In 2025, the Finnish PES undertook a major reform, with the responsibility for organising

employment and integration services being transferred from a central independent institution to

municipalities.

Germany

• Western European country with a large population. In 2024, the country had a low GDP

growth rate, low unemployment rate, and a high job vacancy rate compared with other

countries.

• German PES is assessed as ‘well-developed’ in terms of overall maturity and has participated

in the 4th Benchlearning cycle in 2024 and the 3rd Benchlearning cycle in 2021.

• Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) is structured as an independent public institution with a

Management Board, with the BA acting as a self-governing public law corporation with its

own legal status.

• BA conducts labour market monitoring, analysis and research and produces reports and labour

market statistics and provides assistance to jobseekers (e.g. counselling, guidance, job-search

assistance), manages ALMPs, distributes unemployment benefits including additional

allowances (e.g. child allowances or short time work allowances).

• BA is partially responsible for administering benefits for people with disabilities, as this

responsibility is shared with other agencies; it is fully responsible for providing career

guidance and advice to young people in education.

• Germany remains among the top destinations for annual inflows of intra-EU mobile workers,

the latter represent another potential key group of end-users for the German PES, influencing

their service delivery.

73

Lithuania

• Central and Eastern European country with a medium-low population size. The

country showed a medium GDP growth, high unemployment, and a medium job vacancy rate

in 2024.

• The PES was categorised as ‘developing’’ as part of the 3rd Benchlearning cycle, and its

spending saw a decrease between 2021 and 2022. Lithuania participated in both the 4th and

3rd Benchlearning cycles, allowing to assess the progress across cycles

• The Lithuanian Employment Services (the PES) is an executive agency working under the

auspices of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, to which it reports directly.

• The PES is fully responsible for providing individualised and follow-up assistance to the

unemployed, and for managing ALMPs, but does not administer unemployment benefits or

any other types of allowances.

• The PES is only partially responsible for supporting young people but does not have specific

responsibilities for providing specific benefits or support towards people with disabilities.

Slovenia

• Central and Eastern European country with a medium-low population size. In 2024, the

country recorded a medium-high GDP growth rate, low unemployment, and a medium-

high job vacancy rate.

• The ESS (the Slovenian PES) delivers its services autonomously as an independent institution.

• The ESS is fully responsible for providing individualised and follow-up assistance to the

unemployed, managing ALMPs for jobseekers, and administering unemployment benefits.

• The PES decreased expenditure between 2021 and 2023 and was assessed as ‘developing’ as

part of the 3rd Benchlearning cycle. Its participation in the 4th Benchlearning cycle was

scheduled to be completed in the second half of 2025.

Spain

• Southern European country with a large population. In 2024, it recorded high unemployment,

and a low job vacancy rate.

• Overall PES maturity level was assessed as ‘developable’.

• The National Employment System (NES) is made up of the State Public Employment Service

(SEPE) and the public employment services of the 17 autonomous communities, showing a

high level of decentralisation

• The PES are fully responsible for providing individualised and follow-up assistance to the

unemployed, with the autonomous communities overseeing the implementation of the services

and programmes for employment activation policies.

Following approval of the case study selection by the European Commission, the evaluation

’s National Experts commenced the research. To support this process, the team produced a guidance

document setting out the background to the evaluation and providing detailed instructions on the

national-level desk research and consultations to facilitate a coherent approach across all six case

studies. In addition, two coordination meetings were organised to fully brief the evaluation National

Experts.

Desk-based research was undertaken by the National Experts to collect both qualitative and

quantitative information on the following aspects:

• Additional contextual information, including relevant national- or regional-level labour market

initiatives and policies.

• Detailed information about PES, including their main aims and objectives, target groups,

stakeholders involved, budget, and activities.

• Actions or reforms taken as a result of the PES Benchlearning or other mutual learning

activities, and any potential outcomes or impacts of these, to support the contribution analysis.

• Information to help identify potential interviewees.

74

The National Experts were given access to key sources of qualitative information, including PES

summary reports from the third and fourth Benchmarking cycles, PES country factsheets, PES

quantitative country fiches, EU-level statistical data sources and policy documents to be used as

contextual evidence for the case study. Benchmarking data was also shared, as well as the list of EU

labour market indicators gathered under Task 1.

In addition, National Experts collected and examined additional qualitative and quantitative sources

such as administrative, monitoring, and evaluation data from PES registers, national or

regional authorities (including feedback surveys), and data from the National Statistics Offices. They

also included national policy documents, studies, evaluations, and analytical sources produced by

authorities at national or regional level that provide useful information on the national employment

policies and activities or initiatives related to the PES Decision 2020/1782.Other national qualitative

sources included publications of intergovernmental organisations, academic articles and reports

produced by non-governmental organisations.

To build on the desk research conducted, the National Experts organised targeted consultations with

national-level stakeholders. A total of 47 interviews were conducted between October 2025 and March

2026. A list of the stakeholders consulted can be found in the table below.

Table 6. Stakeholders consulted for the case studies

Country Stakeholder category Organisation/Role Number of

interviews

Bulgaria

Stakeholders in the PES Network

Directorate General of the Bulgarian Employment Agency

(AFEPA) 1

Employment Agency (Head of PES) 1

National and regional level policy

makers

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 1

Employment Agency Directorate 1

Employment Agency, Statistics Department 1 5

Germany

Stakeholders in the PES Network

Federal Employment Agency

AFEPA; Head of PES; and alternate member of the PES

Network; Head of IT

4

National and regional level policy

makers

Regional Office of BA for Northern Germany 1

Jobcenter City of Nürnberg 1

Organisations working on labour

market topics

BDA - Association of German Employers 2

German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) 1

ver.di Trade Union 1

10

Finland

Stakeholders in the PES Network Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of

Finland (AFEPA; Head of PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Association of Finnish Municipalities 1

(Keha) Development and Administrative Services' Centre 1

Helsinki Region Employment Area 1

Organisations working on labour

market topics

University of Tampere 1

Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) 1

75

Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions

(Employment policy specialist; Senior employment policy

specialist)

2

The VATES Foundation – Promoting Employment of

People with Disabilities 1

Employment Industry Finland 1 11

Lithuania

Stakeholders in the PES Network Employment Service of Lithuania (AFEPA; Head of PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Ministry of Social Security and Labour 1

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1

Youth Affairs Agency 1

Organisations working

on labour market topics

Kaunas Industry and Employers Association, Lithuanian

Confederation of Industrialists 1

Lithuanian Engineering and Technology Industry

Association 1

Vilnius Caritas 1 8

Slovenia

Stakeholders in the PES Network Employment Service of Slovenia (AFEPA; Head of PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development 1

Organisations working on labour

market topics

Trade Union Youth Plus 1

National Youth Council of Slovenia 1

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Vocational

Education and Training 1

6

Spain

Stakeholders in the PES Network Spanish Employment Service (SEPE) (AFEPA; Head of

PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Employment service of Galicia 1

Employment service of Navarro 1

Organisations working on labour

market topics

Spanish confederation of Business Organisations (CEOE) 1

General Union of Workers (UGT) 1

Zabaltzen Sartu 1 7

Total 47

The topic guide was structured along the five evaluation criteria of the Better Regulation Guidelines,

following the evaluation matrix. Additionally, it contained questions to support the evaluation’s cost-

effectiveness analysis (Task 4), namely on the costs and benefits associated with involvement in the

PES Network. The interviews were carried out on a semi-structured basis to allow for prompting and

probing on key topics, following the agreed topic guide in the language of the country. The topic guide

was adapted for each case study and case study interviewee, based on their background and

experience.

Following the collection of the primary and secondary data, National Experts carried out data

consolidation, analysis and triangulation, and subsequently drew findings based on the evidence

gathered. This exercise also involved the triangulation of relevant information gathered in Tasks 1 and

3. The following table illustrates the structure of the case study reports.

Table 7. Case study structure outline

Section Content

Introduction and national

context

• Labour market situation

• Policy context

76

4.Task 3: Stakeholder consultations

Task 3 consisted of a comprehensive range of targeted consultation activities to gather the views of a

wide range of European and national level stakeholders relevant to the PES Network, and collect

evidence to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance of the PES

Decision. The Task also:

• Provided key evidence to be integrated into the mapping of PES network inputs, activities,

outputs, results, and impacts under Task 1.

• Fed into the country case studies under Task 2 by providing additional contextual information.

• Gathered additional evidence on costs and benefits of specific activities of the PES Network to

support the cost-effectiveness analysis carried out under Task 4.

4.1 Consultation Strategy

The evaluation team developed a consultation strategy at inception phase which defined the

consultation activities to be carried out, the stakeholders to consult, and the activities through which

their views would be obtained. As outlined in the evaluation framework, the consultation activities

intended to provide evidence and insights to answer evaluation questions under all evaluation criteria,

and across all steps of the evaluation.

Given the specific focus of the PES Network and its activities, many of the stakeholders consulted had

direct experience of involvement in the Network in order to gather the necessary information about the

detailed functioning of the PES Network. This included for example Heads of PES, AFEPAs, and

Benchlearning Steering Group members.

In order to ensure balance, the consultation strategy also included a range of stakeholders external to

the PES Network across the different consultation tasks (specifically case studies, interviews, surveys)

to ensure that a diverse set of opinions was gathered. These included organisations representing PES

clients (e.g. EU-level NGOs, social partners) to assess the impact of the activities of the PES Network

on them. This ensured that perspectives from outside of the PES Network contributed to the evaluation

findings.

As agreed in the methodological approach to the evaluation, some of the evaluation consultation

activities targeted the same stakeholder groups; AFEPAs and Heads of PES were consulted as part of

the surveys, case study interviews, and workshops. As such, the consultation activities were planned

to ensure complementarity, rather than overlap. While the interviews gathered in-depth individual

• PES functioning and performance

Evaluation findings

• Effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Coherence

• EU added value

• Relevance

Conclusion

• Synthesis of the evidence and analysis presented in the case

study, including key changes and impacts at national level, by

evaluation criteria

Annexes • Bibliography

• List of organisations consulted

77

perspectives in a confidential setting, the workshops acted as a space for AFEPAs and Heads of PES

to share general feedback on the functioning and work of the PES Network, as well as exchange ideas

and experiences in a collective dynamic. The survey of

AFEPAs provided more systematic evidence on the PES Network’s impact on the national level.

AFEPAs and Heads of PES in case study countries were not selected to be part of

the stakeholder interviews (see below) to avoid duplication and evaluative burden.

It was decided to focus the final phase interviews on gathering additional views from indirect

stakeholders of the PES Network rather than consulting PES, to avoid risks of duplication in

information and consultation fatigue.

4.2 Stakeholder interviews

Through in-depth interviews with the relevant stakeholders, the evaluation team gathered information

which could not be easily acquired through other research methods. Interviews were carried

out with three key groups of stakeholders:

• Stakeholders directly involved in the PES Network: namely those involved in the

management and implementation of the PES Network such as the Heads of PES and the

AFEPAs, as well as previous and current EMCO chairs, and Benchlearning Steering Group

members;

• Stakeholders indirectly involved in the PES Network: this will primarily include selected

representatives from relevant DG EMPL units and Geodesks, who have knowledge of labour

market and employment policies, both at EU and national level;

• Organisations working on labour market topics and/or representing the voice of PES end-

users: European and international organisations involved in employment policies as well as

training and diversity in the labour market. These included social partners, civil society

organisations and networks, representing the interests of end-users (e.g. employers and

jobseekers as well as specific sub-groups, e.g. SMEs, young people, older workers).

The interviews gathered evidence for all evaluation criteria – effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU

added value, and relevance - and fed into the cost-effectiveness analysis (Task 4) and answering the

evaluation questions (Task 5). They furthermore provided important qualitative data, feeding into Task

1 (mapping of activities, outputs, results, impacts of the PES Network), as well as additional national

data and context for the case studies carried out under Task 2.

Interviewing is well-suited to gathering detailed information on policy and practice. However, some

potential limitations of this method were duly considered:

• Social Desirability Bias: to ensure that respondents felt free to express their perspectives,

specific viewpoints were not attributed to individual stakeholders when reporting;

• Information gathered from different interviewed stakeholders was compared and

triangulated with evidence obtained through all other research methods. This ensured that the

evidence collected allowed us to formulate robust and balanced conclusions.

Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured approach, which, as opposed to other

formats, allows the interviewer the necessary flexibility to deviate, probe, and ask unscripted follow-

up questions based on the interviewee’s responses, thus allowing to further investigate key topics. In

78

line with the revised evaluation matrix, the evaluation team developed two topic guides, tailored to the

two groups of stakeholders to be consulted and their estimated familiarity/experience with the work of

the PES Network:

• Group 1: EMCO chairs and Benchlearning Steering Group representatives;

• Group 2: European and international organisations working on labour market topics and/or

representing the voice of end-users, DG EMPL representatives (i.e. Geodesks and other units

working on topics related to the remit of the PES Network).

The topic guides are structured in line with the evaluation criteria and closely follow the evaluation

questions and sub-questions defined in the technical specifications and elaborated upon in our

evaluation matrix. This ensured that the interviews could directly feed into the responses to the key

evaluation questions of the evaluation and facilitated triangulation of sources during the analysis. The

questions were further tailored as needed by the research team depending on the experience,

background and area of expertise of the individual stakeholders consulted.

The interview programme was launched in October 2025 and completed in March 2026. In total, 38

stakeholders were interviewed. The table below provides the list of organisations consulted.

Table 8. Stakeholders interviewed

Category Organisation/Institution

Stakeholders directly

involved in the PES

Network 

EMCO

Steering Group on Benchlearning

Stakeholders

indirectly involved in

the PES Network

DG EMPL Geodesks for Slovenia, Germany and Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and Portugal

DG EMPL, Unit B1

DG EMPL, Unit B2

DG EMPL, Unit B3

DG EMPL, Unit D1

DG EMPL, Unit E1

DG EMPL, Unit E3

DG EMPL, Unit G1

Organisations

working on labour

market topics and/or

representing the

voice of PES end-

users (employers and

jobseekers, including

specific sub-groups)

EU and international organisations

Eurofound

Cedefop

European Training Foundation (ETF)

European Labour Authority (ELA)

OECD

Euroguidance

EURES Network

World Association of Public Employment Services (WAPES)

79

EU-level civil society organisations

European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)

Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE)

European Disability Forum (EDF)

European Network of Social Integration Enterprises (ENSIE)

EU social partners

Business Europe

SME United

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)

The interviewers wrote the summary notes from the interviews within a template structured around the

main headings from the topic guide, which was used as the basis for subsequent analysis. The write-

ups were prepared in individual Word documents, with one write-up per interview conducted. These

write-ups were subsequently uploaded to the qualitative analysis tool: ATLAS.ti. The evaluation

team used this tool to undertake a systematic thematic analysis, drawing out key issues and findings

under each of the main topic headings corresponding to the five evaluation criteria (effectiveness,

efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value) and the questions outlined in the interview topic

guides. Coding the themes emerging from the interviews allowed for filtering and searching, to

compare and contrast the views of stakeholders and to distinguish areas of consensus from areas where

there were marked differences in opinion. These comparisons allowed the evaluation team to explore

the degree of concurrence in viewpoints between different types of stakeholders (direct and indirect

stakeholders of the PES Network, as well as between public and non-governmental actors), and

whether any country differences emerged from the qualitative data. The evaluation team also had

access to the full set of interview summary notes to verify details and/or further delve into the insights

shared by interviewees as relevant.

The evidence from the interview programme was used in drafting the preliminary answers to all

evaluation questions presented in evaluation, complementing the research conducted in Task 1

(Mapping), Tasks 3.2 (Surveys), 3.3 (Workshops), and Task 4 (Cost-effectiveness analysis).

4.3 Surveys

The surveys gathered evidence from key stakeholders involved in the PES Network and in

related policy areas on all evaluation questions for the evaluation. The survey evidence

complemented the information collected through the interviews about the implementation of the PES

Decision. Data from the surveys also informed the content of the workshop with Heads of PES and

was used to populate the mapping matrix with any evidence of results and impacts of the PES Network

(Task 1). Two surveys were conducted in total, covering three stakeholder groups:

• Survey 1 targeted AFEPAs;

• Survey 2 targeted EMCO members and national labour and social affairs

ministry representatives.

The questionnaire for AFEPAs covered the specific objectives of the PES Network, exploring in-depth

the activities and outputs, and their results and impacts at the national level. The questionnaire for

80

labour and social affairs ministers and EMCO members included more strategic and policy-

level questions, on the relevance and coherence of the PES Network objectives to and with national

employment policies. Some specific questions to EMCO members were also included, using routing,

to investigate synergies between the PES Network and EMCO. The questionnaire addressed the key

evaluation criteria and included the following types of questions:

• Closed-ended questions: factual, for example ratings on the extent to which the PES Network

achieved its objectives or contributed to policy priorities set out in Decision 573/2014/EU as

amended in 2020;

• Dedicated areas for comments/suggestions (open questions): in which respondents

were invited to express or explain their positions and reasoning behind their replies, as well as

to provide examples of how and the extent to which PES Network activities and outputs

achieved results and impacts at the national and EU level.

The questionnaires were developed to ensure language accessibility (i.e. limiting the use of EU jargon,

using simple, accessible language to the extent possible) and using appropriate routing. The surveys

included both closed and open questions. Closed questions used scales to allow data to be collated and

analysed in a consistent way, including questions concerning perceptions on PES Network activities

being more or less successful than others. Open questions were used to maximise the depth of

information collected, allowing respondents to further elaborate on their responses and

provide examples as relevant. The questions were split by evaluation criterion, to gather evidence

across all evaluation questions.

The two surveys targeting AFEPAs and EMCO/ministries were launched on 15 and 16 October 2025

respectively, and ran for about five weeks, with the AFEPA survey closing on 17 November 2025 and

the survey of EMCO/ministries closing on 19 November 2025. The AFEPA survey was shared with

33 potential respondents. The EMCO/ministries survey was disseminated by the EMCO Secretariat

directly. To ensure an appropriate response rate, several reminders were sent to consultees, including

with the valuable support of the PES Network Secretariat. Reminders to the AFEPAs were sent on 29

October, 11 and 13 November 2025. A reminder to the EMCO members was sent on 6 November and

reminders to the national ministries was sent on 10 and 17 November 2025. There were 31 valid

responses to the survey of AFEPAs, and 22 valid responses to the survey of EMCO/ministries.

The results were analysed to identify the frequencies of the answers to the closed questions and

qualitatively assess the replies to the open questions to identify recurring trends, examples and relevant

insights to support the data from the closed questions. The survey results were triangulated with

secondary data collected under the mapping in Task 1 and primary data collected through the other

stakeholder consultation activities (interviews, workshops in Task 3 and country case studies

interviews and focus groups under Task 2). The results of the survey were used to draft the preliminary

answers to all evaluation questions presented in the Interim report and the final answers to all

evaluation questions and all analysis presented in the Final report.

4.4 Workshops

Two in-person evaluation workshops were carried out to consult key PES Network

representatives. The first workshop was organised as part of the in-person AFEPA meeting that took

place on 9 October 2025 in Brussels, bringing together 32 AFEPAs. A second in-person workshop for

81

Heads of PES was delivered on 12 December 2025 as part of the PES Network Board meeting held in

Copenhagen, which brought together 50 participants.

The workshop with AFEPAs covered the extent to which PES activities and outputs have had an

impact on PES practices and the success factors and hindering factors behind this, the operational

delivery of PES Network activities and areas for improvement in terms of effectiveness, costs of

participation/involvement in the PES Network and factors influencing cost-effectiveness of the PES

Network.

The workshop with Heads of PES focused on more high-level topics, examining for example the

overall added value of the PES Network to the work of PES in each country, the relevance of the

Network to the issues facing PES overall, the coherence of the work of the PES Network with national

employment policy priorities and initiatives and whether/how this can be increased, and areas on which

the PES Network could focus in the future to ensure continued relevance.

For each workshop, the Research Team developed a range of materials for its delivery, including:

• The agenda and key questions for discussion, accompanied by a short briefing note with

background information on the context of the consultation. The finalised agenda and briefing

note were shared with workshop participants by DG EMPL a week prior to the event, to allow

sufficient time for AFEPAs to prepare for the discussion.

• PowerPoint presentation to present the evaluation (i.e. scope, timeline and key objectives,

overview of the methodology), introduce the workshop key aims and agenda, and explain the

format of the discussion.

The workshops were structured by evaluation criteria and lasted two hours each. A brief overview of

the evaluation aims and methodology was followed by breakout discussions based on guiding

questions to gather insights from AFEPAs and Heads of PES across all evaluation criteria and

collect additional examples of impacts or challenges encountered. The workshops closed with a final

plenary session asking participants to reflect on future aims and improvements to the PES Network.

4.5 Virtual Policy Delphi

The evaluation team conducted a virtual Policy Delphi - a structured, online method for gathering

expert opinions, using an anonymous questionnaire. The methodology of the Policy Delphi was

adapted to focus on consulting a selected group of stakeholders on forward-looking conclusions and

lessons learned that can help shape the future of the PES Decision post-2027. To implement the Policy

Delphi, a panel of 12 stakeholders with relevant expertise was selected, including the following

experts: High-level Advisors for the evaluation (Marton Csillag from the Budapest Institute and Stefan

Humpl from 3s), EMCO chairs, EU social partners, civil society representatives and other networks.

The Policy Delphi was launched on 9 April 2026 and ran for three weeks, until 30 April 2026, gathering

8 responses.

5.Task 4: Cost-effectiveness analysis.

The study assessed the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the activities of the PES Network, taking

into account the costs of activities’ outputs and results and the factors that had an influence on delivery

and effectiveness. To facilitate comparisons with the findings of the 2019 evaluation, the approach to

the efficiency assessment followed closely the approach adopted in the previous evaluation.

82

A traditional CEA addresses how far activities have been implemented at a cost which is proportionate

to the level of outputs and results achieved. Traditional CEA assumes a direct, quantifiable link

between costs and measurable outputs/results, which is often not feasible for complex, multi-level

initiatives like the PES Network. The evaluation methodology acknowledged that many PES

Network results and impacts, such as institutional learning or long-term employment impacts, are

intangible or indirect, limiting the scope of strict unit cost calculations.

The evaluation’s approach maximised the use of quantitative data, where available, complemented by

qualitative insights that examined scope for cost savings and gains in efficiency. Cost-effectiveness

analysis of specific activities was undertaken with reference to the refined intervention logic, ensuring

that all potential cost inputs and potential outputs and results were mapped and incorporated. Data to

inform calculations was gathered from a range of sources across all research tasks:

• PES Network expenditure data, including data on the costs of managing and delivering the PES

Network at EU level, gathered from the PES Network Secretariat in DG EMPL;

• Analysis of the activities and outputs of the PES Network compiled in the Mapping of PES

Network inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts (Sub-task 1.1);

• Data from the consultation activities in Task 3 (EU-level interviews, surveys of

AFEPAs, workshops with AFEPAs and Heads of PES), which allowed us to ask detailed

questions regarding time spent at country-level in the work of the PES Network and factors

determining the cost-effectiveness of PES Network activities;

• Data from national-level consultations conducted as part of the country case studies (Task 2).

Drawing on data provided by DG EMPL on the expenditure at EU level to manage and ‘run’ the PES

Network, the evaluation team examined how far the administration and management costs of

coordinating and implementing the PES Decision was cost-effective. Trends in budgetary allocations

between 2021-2025 were compared to the 2014-2018 period covered by the previous evaluation. In

addition, to the extent feasible, the analysis benchmarked cost-effectiveness findings against other

comparable EU-level networks and structures focusing on promoting mutual learning. In particular,

the analysis focused on drawing comparisons between the PES Network and the European Migration

Network (EMN), due to a common focus on implementing activities encouraging cross border

cooperation, knowledge sharing and cross border cooperation and receiving European funding.

The consultations undertaken in the evaluation provided opportunities to develop a deeper analysis of

factors affecting the balance of expenditure between administration and operational costs, steps taken

to reduce the administrative obligations and whether there is scope to achieve a more cost-effective

balance. All research tools were reviewed in the inception phase and again following each research

task with the CEA needs in mind.

In terms of country-level costs incurred by individual PES, data was gathered through consultation

activities (Task 3). In particular, through the AFEPA survey, the evaluation team gathered quantitative

data on the number of days that full-time equivalent (FTE) staff within individual PES spent on PES

Network activities in 2024, and estimations of additional costs (e.g. travel and accommodation)

incurred by PES to participate in Network activities in 2024. Subsequently, the data was analysed

through the following steps:

• Data collected through the AFEPA on the number of days spent in Network activities was then

converted into FTEs, assuming an average of 220 working days a year.

83

• The calculated FTEs were then multiplied by the average civil service gross salary from each

country, based on Appendix 2 of the Eurostat Report on the 2024 annual update

of remuneration and pensions of EU officials, to estimate the staff expenditure on the PES

Network from the national PES.

• The results of the above calculations were added to data on estimated additional costs, to

calculate the overall total PES country costs.

In addition to budget data shared by the PES Network Secretariat (DG EMPL) and data on direct costs

and contributions-in-kind from participating PES collected via the consultation activities (Task 3), a

follow-up questionnaire was shared with nine AFEPAs who volunteered to provide additional

information on costs incurred by their organisation to engage in PES Network activities. The follow-

up questionnaire was sent in February 2026 and ran until 15 March 2026, with seven responses

received. It should however be noted that there may have been selection bias, in that the

PES who volunteered to provide this extra data are among those most engaged in the PES Network

and may be more likely to then assess it positively. Questions included the following:

• Estimate of the number of days staff spent on PES Network activities within the PES, across

key activity strands (e.g. Benchlearning, mutual learning, governance activities);

• Estimate of total costs associated with PES Network involvement (e.g. travel, accommodation,

translations, expert inputs, etc.);

• Extent to which costs associated with involvement in the PES Network are proportionate to the

benefits.

Expenditure data both at ‘programme’ and ‘activity’ level, with a focus on per annum costs for DG

EMPL and individual PES, including internal staff costs (Full Time Equivalent (FTE)), subcontracted

costs and other expenditure items, as well as a qualitative assessment of benefits (compared to cost),

supported an assessment of how investment in each activity category has translated into selected

outputs and results, and how this has changed over time.

The analysis of expenditure was complemented by a qualitative assessment of the cost-effectiveness

of the PES Network’s activities. The in-depth consultation activities (in particular the survey of

AFEPAs as well as the input received through the workshops of AFEPAs and Heads of PES),

undertaken as part of Task 3 built on the expenditure tracking to provide an in-depth qualitative

understanding of the activity: the way in which the activity was delivered (e.g., approach to mutual

learning), costs involved, and how it contributed to specific outputs and results. These

consultations generated insights on any efficiencies or inefficiencies arising in the process of

delivery.

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are included in Annex IV.

6.Task 5: Answering the evaluation questions

To produce the evaluation report, all the evidence and findings from the different research Tasks (1-4)

were compiled and analysed by our evaluation team in line with the structure of our evaluation

framework. The evaluation framework provided the structure for all the evaluation research tools,

which ensured that the findings from all the different Tasks for each evaluation criterion could be

easily collated in the interim and final stages of the evaluation for analysis.

84

The evidence gathered through all the research tasks (mapping, country case studies, stakeholder

consultation activities, cost-effectiveness analysis) was analysed and triangulated to provide answers

to all evaluation questions and sub-questions, with systematic reference to the evidence and/or analysis

underpinning the findings presented. The analysis was presented in the reports in sections

corresponding to each of the evaluation criteria, and by individual evaluation question.

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX

The evaluation matrix addresses the research questions, presents the sub-questions that fall under the

headline questions, the judgment criteria and indicators that were used to address these questions and

the elements of our methodology which would provide the required evidence.

Evaluation

criteria

Main evaluation

questions Sub-questions Judgment criteria1 Indicators Points of comparison2 Data sources

Effectiveness

1. To what extent has the

PES Network been

successful in achieving

its specific objectives?

a. How successful were the Benchlearning

activities carried out by the PES Network

in assessing and achieving increased

transparency of PES performance?

• Have the Benchlearning activities

been more successful in some

national contexts than others? If so,

why (e.g. national procedures, rules,

economic context, etc.)?

• Benchlearning has contributed to improved

transparency of PES performance since 2021 at

EU level and in the majority of participating

countries

• There are clear improvements in the

methodology and indicators used to assess PES

performance since 2021

• Significant improvements (e.g. new

methods, wider dissemination, new

communication tools/channels, etc.) can be

observed in dissemination and communication

of assessments of PES performance to relevant

stakeholders since 2021

• Benchlearning activities have been more

successful in improving the transparency of

PES performance in certain national contexts

(e.g. socio-economic context, PES organisation,

structured dissemination of learning from the

PES Network, etc.) than others

• Greater transparency of PES

performance to which the Benchlearning

process (benchmarking, mutual learning,

etc.) has contributed

• Use of results of qualitative and

quantitative Benchmarking leading to e.g.

mutual learning activities or specific

changes in national PES

• Improvements in the methodology and

indicators for defining and assessing PES

performance

• Improvements in dissemination and

communication of assessments of PES

performance

• Benchmarking results (quantitative

and qualitative assessment indicators),

TLD results and mutual learning activity

outcomes

• Degree of success in terms of

transparency on PES performance

achieved through Benchlearning activities

in 2014-2020

• Degree of success in terms of

transparency on PES performance which

could reasonably be expected in the

absence of the 2020 PES Network

Decision (non-continuation of the PES

Network activities from 2021)

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• PES benchmarking indicators 2014-2020 and

2021-2025 (for context)

• Qualitative and quantitative desk research

(Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

b. To what degree has the PES

Network facilitated mutual learning

and mutual assistance, leading to the

uptake of good practices, as well as

other outcomes (e.g. other

improvements in PES

practices/performance, self-

reflection), relevant for PES in areas

within the scope of the PES Network

Decision?

• Which PES Network activities

were particularly effective in

facilitating mutual learning and

uptake of good practices?

• Are there any additional effects

of PES Network activities (such

as stronger tendency for innovation,

sharing of digital solutions)?

• Which areas of PES

responsibilities have particularly

benefited from mutual learning and

its outcomes, including the uptake of

good practices?

• Have there been more positive

outcomes from mutual learning in

certain national contexts than

others? If so, why? Have the

Member States most in need of

improvements taken up good

practices?

• The PES Network has facilitated mutual

learning and mutual assistance, leading to the

uptake of good practices, as well as other

outcomes (e.g. other improvements in PES

practices/performance, self-reflection) in areas

within the scope of the PES Network Decision

• Specific PES Network activities have been

more/less effective than others in fostering

relevant mutual learning, leading to relevant

outcomes, including the uptake of good

practices

• Additional types of impacts in PES in

several participating PES (e.g. increase in

innovation, sharing of other solutions e.g.

digital, sustainability-related, etc.) deriving

from involvement in PES Network activities

• The uptake of good practices has been

greater in certain national contexts (e.g. socio-

economic context, PES maturity level, PES

organisation, etc.)

• Number, type, scope, engagement

(participation), outputs, results and

impacts of mutual learning activities

• PES Network activities which have

been more/less successful than others in

fostering mutual learning and relevant

outcomes, including the uptake of good

practices

• No./type of additional impacts (e.g.

increase in innovation, sharing of other

solutions e.g. digital, sustainability-

related, etc.) which can be attributed to

participation in PES Network activities

• Specific areas of PES responsibility,

including organisational processes and

responsibilities, have improved thanks to

mutual learning or mutual assistance,

leading to relevant outcomes including the

uptake of good practices

• Quantitative and qualitative evidence

on examples and impacts of uptake of

good practices in different MS/contexts

• Number/type/scope of mutual learning

activities implemented in 2014-2020

• Degree to which mutual learning and

mutual assistance led to the

implementation of improvements by PES,

including the uptake of good practices in

2014-2020

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Qualitative and quantitative desk research

(Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

86

a.

b.

c. To what degree has the PES

Network Decision led to cooperation

between PES Network and

relevant labour market

stakeholders3?

• Notable increase in cooperation with

relevant labour market stakeholders at

EU/international level

• Participation (numbers, types,

frequency) of relevant EU;/international

labour market stakeholders in relevant

Network activities and meetings

• Exchange of information and data

with relevant labour market stakeholders

• Degree of cooperation with relevant

EU and international labour market

stakeholders in 2014-2020

• Likely degree of cooperation with

relevant labour market stakeholders in the

absence of the PES Decision

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Qualitative and quantitative desk research

(Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

2. To what extent has

the PES Network

Decision’s

implementation

contributed to a

strengthened,

modernised and better

performing PES?

a. To what extent has the PES

Network Decision’s implementation

(Benchlearning and mutual learning

activities) contributed to a

strengthened, modernised and better

performing PES in individual

Member States?

• Improvements in PES performance (as

shown by PES benchmarking indicators A+B of

the Annex of Decision), can be attributed at

least partially (via contribution analysis) to PES

Network activities

• Modernisation (e.g. digitalisation) and

strengthening of PES can be attributed at least

partially (via contribution analysis) to PES

Network activities

• Benchmarking indicators on PES

performance 2021-2025

• Scope, scale and volume of impacts on

PES Network members in terms of

modernising and strengthening PES and

improving performance (e.g. digitalisation

of services, new working processes,

improved communication and outreach,

improved services for

jobseekers/employers etc.)

• Qualitative or quantitative (e.g. labour

market data) evidence of reasons which

can provide context to any impacts in

terms of modernisation, strengthening and

better performance of individual PES

• The degree to which the Decision’s

implementation contributed to

strengthened, modernised and better

performing PES in 2014-2020

• Differences in the impact on PES

Network members in the period pre-2021

• PES benchmarking indicators A+B in

the period 2014-2020

• Views of relevant stakeholders on the

situation pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Quantitative and qualitative benchmarking

indicators on PES performance 2014-2020 and

2021-2025

• Qualitative and quantitative desk research

(Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3) b. If there are significant

differences in impact between PES

Network members, what is causing

them?

• The results of the implementation of the

PES Network Decision’s implementation show

that the impact on modernising and

strengthening PES (Art.4.1(c)) show substantial

differences - in terms of e.g. scope, scale and

volume - between Network members

• Reasons can be identified to explain such

differences (e.g. engagement levels of members,

national-level dissemination of learning,

national socio-economic context, PES maturity

level, PES organisation, etc.)

• Benchmarking indicators on PES

performance 2021-2025, including key

differences between PES Network

members

• Qualitative or quantitative (e.g. labour

market data) evidence of reasons which

can explain any differences

• Differences in impact between PES

Network members identified in the 2014-

2020 period

c. To what extent has the PES

Network supported and encouraged

cooperation and experience

exchange between Member States?

• Has this resulted in (bilateral)

collaboration beyond the activities

organised by the Network (spillover

effect)?

• Several examples of cooperation and

exchange of experience between Member States

in the different areas of PES responsibility (as

set out in Art.3 of the PES Network Decision

and areas that contribute to the modernisation

and strengthening of PES) which can be

attributed to PES Network activities since

2021

• Clear and corroborated examples of bilateral

cooperation between Member States beyond

PES Network activities since 2021 that can be

linked to PES Network activities

• Number, type and scope of exchanges

and cooperation between Member States

linked to PES Network activities

• Volume, type and scope of bilateral

cooperation between Member States

outside PES Network activities

• Levels and type of cooperation and

exchange of experience between Member

States pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

87

3. To what extent has

the PES Network

Decision’s

implementation

contributed to the

development and

implementation of

relevant EU policies (as

set out in Art.4.1(e) of

the PES Network

Decision), including in

particular the Union’s

employment policies (as

stipulated in Art.3 of the

PES Network

Decision)?

• To what degree has the PES

Network effectively supported the

development and implementation of

relevant policies, particularly in the

field of employment (e.g. European

Youth Guarantee, the Council

Recommendation on the integration

of the LTU etc.) and the

employment dimensions of specific

policies (i.e. European Green Deal,

UN Sustainable Development

Goals) at EU level?

• Clear examples of the PES Network

activities having effectively supported the

development and/or implementation of relevant

EU-level policies since 2021

• No/limited evident gaps in the PES

Network’s support to relevant EU-level policy

development and/or implementation

• Examples of contributions from the

implementation of the PES Network Decision to

the implementation of a range of (at least 3-4)

specific EU employment policies since 2021 at

EU and/or implementation of EU policies at

national level

• Evidence of contributions of the PES

Network activities to relevant EU-level

policies to development and/or

implementation (e.g. in legal texts,

reports, events, impact assessments, etc.)

• Numbers and policy focus of EU-level

policies for which the PES Network has

contributed to their development and/or

implementation

• Evidence from analysis of legal texts

(regulations, decisions, communications)

underpinning relevant EU policies of the

incorporation of the experience of PES,

which can be linked to PES Network

activities

• Contributions by PES Network

activities to EU policies pre-2021

• Views of relevant stakeholders on the

situation pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Legal analysis of texts underpinning relevant

EU policies

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

4. To what extent has

the PES Network

Decision’s

implementation

(activities and outputs)

contributed to PES

activities supporting the

policy priorities set out

in Article 3 of the PES

Network Decision?

To what extent has the

implementation of the Decision

supported PES activities and outputs

contributing to support for4:

• All vulnerable social groups

with high unemployment rates

(Art.3(a))

• Decent and sustainable work

(Art.3(b))

• Better functioning and

inclusiveness of the EU labour

markets (Art.3(c))

• Gender equality (Art.3(ca))

• The identification of skills

shortages and skills matching

(Art.3(d))

• Better integration of labour

markets (Art.3(e))

• Increased voluntary

geographical/ occupational mobility

(Art.3(f))

• The integration of persons

excluded from the labour market

(Art.3(g))

• The evaluation and assessment

of active labour market initiatives

(Art.3(h))

• The implementation of the PES Network

Decision made a clear contribution (with a

broad range of examples e.g. as the focus of

mutual learning events, good practices,

MAPs, etc.) to PES activities supporting these

policy priorities since 2021

• Number, type, results and impacts of

PES Network activities and outputs

addressing the different policy priorities

• Contributions (e.g. as the focus of

mutual learning events, good practices,

MAPs, etc.) by PES Network activities to

supporting these policy priorities

• Contributions by PES Network

activities to supporting these objectives

pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

Efficiency

5. To what extent are

the administrative and

adjustment costs of the

intervention justified,

given the changes/effects

it has achieved?

• There are convincing evidence and

examples that benefits (changes/effects)

generated by the PES Network activities justify

the administrative and adjustment costs since

2021

• Administrative and adjustment costs

related to the implementation of the PES

Network at national and EU level

• Qualitative/quantitative evidence on

changes/effects (benefits)

• Degree to which administrative and

adjustment costs can be justified by the

changes/effects (benefits) observed

• Evidence on whether benefits could

have been achieved more efficiently

• Degree to which costs to achieve the

changes/ effects were justified pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

• Cost-effectiveness analysis (Task 4)

88

6. Is there evidence of

costs (including

administrative

obligations) that could

be avoided or reduced,

for example via

increased

digitalisation?

• Were lessons learnt from the

previous implementation period

implemented to reduce costs?

• The intervention was implemented

efficiently and there is no evidence that costs

(including administrative obligations) could

have been avoided or reduced via efficiency

measures (e.g. via increased digitalisation,

reorganisation of services, etc.) since 2021

• If there is scope for cost reduction, the

evaluation can identify types of efficiency gains

(e.g. via increased digitalisation, reorganisation

of services, etc.) which have been able/had the

potential to reduce/avoid costs since 2021

• Lessons from the previous implementation

period were implemented to reduce costs

• Qualitative and (where available)

quantitative evidence on costs which

could be reduced or avoided, and whether

lessons learnt on cost reductions were

implemented

• Qualitative and where available)

quantitative evidence on types of potential

efficiency gains

• Evidence on areas where costs could

have been avoided/reduced pre-2021

Coherence

7. To what extent is

coherence and

complementarity ensured

with other EU or

international policies and

initiatives with related

objectives?5

What is the complementarity and

coherence of the PES Network

Decision with:

• Broader policy initiatives in the

field of employment (e.g. European

Pillar of Social Rights, European

Skills agenda, European

Employment Strategy)

• The EURES Network, given the

objective of the PES Network to

support voluntary geographical and

occupational mobility

• EU policies to integrate Third

Country Nationals in the EU labour

market

• Support to PES capacity via

European funds (e.g. ESF+, RRF,

TSI)

• The work and objectives of EU

agencies under remit of DG

Employment (Eurofound, Cedefop,

EU-OSHA, ETF, ELA)

• Employment and social

dimensions of EU Enlargement

policy

• Employment and social

dimensions of EU Migration

policies

• Employment and social

dimensions of the European Green

Deal

• Employment and social

dimensions of the United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals?

Legal analysis conducted, corroborated by

consultations, indicates a high level of

complementarity and coherence of the

PES Network Decision with relevant EU or

international policies in legal texts and

implementation/results since 2021, including:

• Broader policy initiatives in the field of

employment (e.g. European Pillar of Social

Rights, European Skills agenda, European

Employment Strategy)

• The EURES Network, given the objective

of the PES Network to support voluntary

geographical and occupational mobility

• EU policies to integrate Third Country

Nationals in the EU labour market

• Support to PES capacity via European funds

(e.g. ESF+, RRF, TSI)

• The work and objectives of EU agencies

under remit of DG Employment (Eurofound,

Cedefop, EU-OSHA, ETF, ELA)

• Employment and social dimensions of the

EU Enlargement policy

• Employment and social dimensions of the

European Green Deal

• Employment and social dimensions of the

United Nations Sustainable Development

Goals

• Evidence of complementarity and

coherence based on a coherence analysis

of the legal texts underpinning the

EU/international policies

• Extent of complementarity with

relevant EU/international policies from

other sources (e.g. desk research,

consultations)

• Objectives, scope and activities of

other EU and international policies

and initiatives set out in the legal texts

underpinning them

• Degree pf coherence with relevant

EU/international policies over the

evaluation period (2021-2025)

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Legal texts underpinning other EU and

international policies and initiatives

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

89

8. To what extent was

coherence and

complementarity ensured

with national policies

and initiatives?

• Indications that there is a high level of

complementarity with relevant national policies

and measures

• Examples of mechanisms/tools at national

level to foster complementarity with national

policies and measures (e.g.

feedback/contributions/learning from PES

Network activities/priorities in national

policymaking forums, events etc.)

• Qualitative evidence from a coherence

analysis of the PES Network Decision

with relevant national policies and

measures in the PES Network member

countries

• Qualitative evidence on the extent of

complementarity with relevant national

policies and initiatives from other sources

(e.g. desk research, consultations)

• Objectives, scope and activities of

relevant national policies and initiatives

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on

coherence with national policies and

measures pre-2021

• Views of relevant stakeholders on the

situation pre-2021

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Work Programmes, PES

Network Annual Reports, etc.

• Information sources on national policies and

initiatives

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

9. Are activities and

inputs (both at EU -

including

PES Secretariat staffing

model- and national

level) appropriate to

achieve the objectives?

(internal coherence)

• Activities and inputs to the PES Network,

both at EU and national level, are aligned and

coherent with its objectives and overall

appropriate, based on expert evaluative

judgment, for achieving them.

• No evidence suggesting that changes to the

inputs or activities would be required to

enhance its internal coherence.

• Internal coherence analysis of the

inputs and activities of the PES Network

as set out in the PES Network Decision

• Extent of internal coherence obtained

from other sources (e.g. desk research,

consultations)

• Internal coherence and appropriateness

of inputs and activities to meet

the objectives according to expert

evaluative judgment

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

• Cost-effectiveness analysis (Task 4)

To what extent were the

results of the PES

Network Decision

consistent with the aims

of the Decision as

captured in Art.3 – i.e.

contribution to the

Union’s employment

policies (including the

European Pillar of Social

Rights), the European

Green Deal and the

United Nations

Sustainable

Development Goals?

As noted above (see Q.7), we have

proposed consolidating this question

into Q.7 for better streamlining of

the research and presentation of the

results

EU added value

10. Is it still valid to

assume that the

objectives of the

intervention can best be

met by action at EU

level?

• To what extent do the

needs/problems addressed by the

intervention continue to require

action at EU level?6

• The majority of relevant stakeholders agree

that the objectives of the PES Network Decision

can best be met by action at EU level

• The no action at EU level scenario shows

that the objectives of the PES Network Decision

can reasonably be expected to best be met by

action at EU level

• Evidence on the need for EU action

from relevant labour market stakeholders

• Likely projection of the counterfactual

policy-off scenario of no EU-level action

(based on stakeholder views, expert

analysis, consideration of PES Network

activity outputs and results from mapping,

etc.)

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

need for action at EU level to meet the

objectives

• Projection of how the situation could

have been expected to evolve in the

absence of EU-level action • 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• Projection of results and impacts of a

counterfactual ‘policy-off’ scenario with no EU-

level action

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

11. What would be the

most likely

consequences of

stopping EU

intervention?

• Evidence suggests that stopping the EU

intervention in the counterfactual ‘policy-off’

scenario projection (discontinuing the PES

Network) would have negative consequences

across a range of domains (e.g. impact on

cooperation at EU level, impact on PES

performance, etc.)

• Likely consequences Likely the

counterfactual policy-off’ scenario of no

EU-level action (based on stakeholder

views, expert analysis, consideration of

PES Network activity outputs and results

from mapping, etc.)

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

consequences of stopping EU

intervention

• Projection of likely consequences of

stopping the EU intervention

12. To what extent

would the positive

effects last if the

intervention ends?

• Evidence and analysis show the likely

duration - short (1-2 years), medium (3-5

years), long (6+ years) term - of different

positive effects of the PES Network Decision in

the counterfactual ‘policy off’ scenario

(discontinuing the EU intervention)

• Views of stakeholders on the likely

duration of positive effects if the

intervention ends

• Likely consequences from a projection

of the counterfactual ‘policy-off’ scenario

(stopping EU intervention)

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

duration of any positive effects if the

intervention had ended

• Projection of likely consequences of

stopping the EU intervention in terms of

duration of positive effects

90

Relevance

13. To what extent did

the objectives of the

intervention remain

relevant over the

implementation period?

• Evidence that the needs and problems

addressed by the objectives of the PES Network

Decision remained relevant over the 2021-2025

implementation period

• Evidence from and expert judgment

based on desk research on ongoing needs

and problems on the EU labour market

• Evidence from the analysis of the

evolution of PES benchmarking indicators

on ongoing needs for PES

• Evidence from stakeholder

consultations and other desk research on

the ongoing relevance of the objectives

• Original objectives/needs as set out in

the PES 2020 Network Decision

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on

ongoing relevance of objectives over the

previous period

• Evolution of the labour market

situation across the evaluation period

(2021-2025)

• Evolution of PES performance over

the evaluation period (2021-2025)

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Decisions

• Quantitative and qualitative benchmarking

indicators on PES performance

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

14. To what extent was

the PES Network

flexible and able to adapt

to changes in the

implementation

context?

• What outcomes were achieved

by flexibility/adaptations that were

introduced?

• What were the consequences of

any insufficient flexibility to adapt

to change?7

• Clear examples that - over time - the PES

Network has been flexible in adapting to

changes in the implementation context (e.g.

introduction of new topics for PES Network

activities, introduction of new

working/cooperation processes, etc.)

• No evidence of gaps in adaptation to key

changes

• Existence of mechanisms/tools to foster

reactivity/flexibility of the PES Network to

changes in the implementation context

• Key changes in the implementation

context (e.g. Covid-19, Russian

aggression in Ukraine, rapid digital/green

transition, reducing unemployment, etc.)

• Evidence on the ability of the PES

Network to adapt to changes (from

consultations, desk research, mapping of

PES activities/outputs, etc.)

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

flexibility of the PES Network to respond

to changes in the implementation context

• Expectations of relevant stakeholders

on the flexibility of the PES Network and

the alternative scenario (if changes

have/have not been made)

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Decisions

• PES Network Work Programmes, Annual

Reports, etc.

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

15. To what extent are

the aims, general, and

specific objectives of the

PES Network still

relevant and likely to

remain relevant in the

context of the situation

and new challenges on

EU labour market (e.g.

skills and labour

shortages, demographic

change, challenges of

digital and green

transitions,

competitiveness

challenges)?

• Credible evidence that the aims, general,

and specific objectives of the PES Network are

still relevant to the current context of the EU

labour market

• Clear evidence that the aims, general and

specific objectives of the PES Network will

remain relevant to key emerging challenges on

the EU labour market (e.g. skills and labour

shortages, demographic change, challenges of

digital and green transitions, competitiveness

challenges)

• Evidence from research tasks (desk

research, consultations, case studies, etc.)

on the current situation and emerging

challenges in the EU labour market

• Evidence from research tasks (desk

research, consultations, case studies, etc.)

on the current and likely future relevance

of the aims, general and specific

objectives of the PES Network

• Original objectives/needs as set out in

the PES 2020 Network Decision

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

existing and future relevance of

objectives

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Decisions

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

16. How do the

objectives of the

intervention correspond

to wider and new EU

policy goals and

priorities?

• There is a high level of correspondence of

the objectives set out in the PES Network

Decision with wider and new EU policy goals

and priorities (e.g. the Union of Skills. the

Competitiveness Compass, the Clean Industrial

Deal, etc.)

• Evidence from a coherence analysis of

the legal texts underpinning the wider and

new EU policy priorities compared with

objectives of the PES Network Decision

• Evidence from research tasks (desk

research, consultations, case studies, etc.)

on the correspondence of the objectives of

the PES Network with wider and new EU

policy goals and priorities

• Objectives, scope and activities of

wider and new EU policy goals and

priorities

• Evaluative findings from 2019 on the

correspondence of objectives to wider and

(then) new EU policy goals and priorities

• 2019 evaluation of the PES Network Decision

• PES Network Decisions

• Legal texts underpinning wider and new EU

goals and priorities

• Qualitative desk research (Task 1)

• Mapping of PES Network activities (Task 1)

• Country case studies (Task 2)

• Stakeholder consultations (Task 3)

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

This Annex includes a Table (i.e. ‘cost-benefits table’) providing an overview of the main costs and

benefits associated with the application of the amended PES Decision, drawing on the evidence

collected for this evaluation.

Annex II (Methodology and Analytical model used) provides further details on data sources and

robustness.

In line with the Better Regulations Guidelines170 and Toolbox171, the Table below distinguishes

between direct costs, direct benefits, and indirect benefits, and identifies whether these are recurrent

or one-off costs. It also identifies the stakeholder groups affected, categorised as citizens, businesses,

and public administrations.

170 Better Regulation Guidelines. 171 Better Regulation Toolbox.

Type of

costs/benefits

Description Type

(one-off

or

recurrent)

Citizens Businesses Administrations

Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment

Direct costs

PES staff costs Costs incurred to

administer the PES

network activities

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR

2,966,826

Total annual cost across

all national PES

PES non labour

costs

Costs, such as travel,

accommodation,

translation, and

external expertise that

do not include PES

staff costs and are not

reimbursed by the

European Commission

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR 306,

240

Total annual cost across

all national PES

Second, Staff

costs

Costs of national PES

staff seconded to the

Secretariat incurred by

Member States

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR 423,

724

Estimated annual gross

salary cost based on

average civil service

salaries for the relevant

countries.172

European

Commission

expenditure on

administrative

items

Costs of administrative

functions such as

board and AFEPA

meetings, staff

missions, monitoring,

evaluation and office

support

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR

147,535

Annual cost

European

Commission

Costs of operational

activities such as

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR

1,846,503

Annual cost

172It should be noted that seconded costs were not included in the calculation of PES Network Secretariat costs in the 2019 evaluation.

93

expenditure on

operational items

Benchlearning

activities. mutual

learning and assistance

activities, reporting and

analytical activities,

communication

activities and tools

European

Commission staff

costs

In addition to the

contracted costs for the

PES Network Work

Programme, the

Commission incurred

costs for staff allocated

to the Network

Secretariat (without the

costs of national PES

staff seconded to the

Secretariat which were

incurred by Member

States)

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not applicable Not

applicable

Not applicable EUR

234,359

Estimated annual cost

based on FTE inputs To

calculate the salary costs,

an average value at the

mid-point of the range of

staff grades 5 to 12 that is

allocated to the job

position was taken, based

on official salary

information173

Direct benefits

Accelerated

reform of PES

Engagement in PES

Network activities

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

PES Network activities

have strengthened PES

173See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202407388

94

policy and

practice through

the provision of

comparative

evidence through

Benchlearning

and

opportunities for

mutual learning

leading to faster PES

reforms and uptake of

good practices and

innovative solutions

across key areas of PES

responsibility, driven

by comparative

evidence and mutual

learning.

across all levels of

maturity and regardless

of size. This has enabled

PES to adopt proven

service-delivery models,

upgrade management

systems, and embed

quality-improvement

processes that likely

would not have emerged

at the same speed through

national efforts alone.

This has led to more

strategic approaches to

performance

management (e.g. KPIs,

evidence-based

monitoring), better

quality services –

particularly towards

vulnerable groups and

employers - and

increased digitalisation

(e.g. digital

transformation strategies,

AI-powered tools and

platforms, digital service

delivery). Benchlearning

recommendations offered

evidence for needed

changes and reforms.

Faster and more

efficient

implementation

of good practices

and innovative

approaches

through

Piloting and fostering

the take-up of shared

approaches among

PES, by providing

opportunities to

enhance operational

cooperation and

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

PES Network activities

ensured that promising

innovations (e.g. on

digitalisation) were

shared more efficiently

and effectively across

PES, with mutual

95

operational

cooperation

collectively drawing on

proven innovative

methods.

learning enabling PES to

“copy-adapt” effective

solutions rather than

develop them from

scratch, reducing

duplication, lowering

costs and reducing risks

of experimentation.

Increased

transparency,

accountability

and

understanding of

PES

performance

Benchlearning cycles

allowing PES to

understand their

strengths and

weaknesses, compare

themselves with peers,

and access structured

recommendations for

improvement.

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

The peer review aspect of

Benchlearning fostered a

regular, judgment-free

space to exchange,

promoting increased self-

reflection on existing

practices and identified

areas for improvement,

including through links

with mutual learning

opportunities to

accelerate change.

This self-reflection and

peer review exercise has

also allowed PES to both

strengthen their own

assessment culture (e.g.

by requiring different

departments, functions

and roles in the PES to

cooperate internally to

develop a shared

understanding of PES

performance) and

continued to contribute to

fostering greater

EU-wide awareness of

how PES are progressing

over time.

96

Positive impacts

on PES staff

development

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Engagement in PES

Network activities

exposed PES staff to new

ideas, tools, and

perspectives, and

supported PES to further

develop their HR

strategies to enhance staff

capacity and training.

Enhanced

cooperation and

experience

exchange

between PES

through

participation in

Network

activities

PES Network activities

providing a space for

formal and informal

cooperation and trust

building between PES.

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Engagement in PES

Network activities has

allowed PES to build

personal relationships

and a network of

contacts, representing an

invaluable resource that

facilitated rapid exchange

of information on specific

topics between PES.

Stimulating

increased

bilateral

cooperation

beyond the PES

Network

Increased opportunities

for PES to cooperate

and exchange

information beyond the

formal activities

organised by the PES

Network

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

The Network is now a

well-established

structure, with many

members having

developed strong

personal relationships

over time. This means

that cooperation

continues beyond the

Network itself, with

personal relationships

built through Network

activities leading to

bilateral cooperation and

exchanges (e.g. study

visits) and partnerships.

Stronger PES

contributions to

Greater influence of

PES on EU policy

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

PES gained a stronger

and more coherent voice

97

EU policy

development,

implementation

and monitoring

through speaking

collectively

through the

Network

instruments related to

employment and other

relevant policy areas.

in EU policy debates in

the area of employment,

and on employment

aspects of other policy

areas, by feeding into

PES Network

contributions to formal

consultations and opinion

papers.

Broadened

cooperation with

labour market

actors and

strengthened

ecosystem

collaboration

Expanded cooperation

beyond PES-to-PES

exchange, reinforcing

collaboration with EU

agencies, social

partners, NGOs,

regional actors, and EU

enlargement countries.

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Wider engagement

helped PES align

strategies, strengthen

partnerships, and access

broader expertise,

ultimately contributing to

more coherent and

effective labour-market

governance across

Europe.

98

Indirect benefits

Enhanced

quality of

services for PES

clients

Better quality services

provided by PES to

jobseekers and

employers resulting

from PES’ engagement

in the PES Network

Recurrent Not

applicable

As a result of

Network

participation,

several PES

reported

enhancing their

services towards

vulnerable

groups (e.g.

outreach

strategies,

enhanced

activation

measures,

profiling tools)

and

implementing

personalised and

tailored support

services for

jobseekers (e.g.

enhanced career

guidance, job

placement and

training

services).

Not

applicable

As a result of

Network

participation,

several PES

reported

increased

cooperation with

employers,

including through

the development

of employers

strategies,

dedicated

services, and

partnership

building.

Not

applicable

Stronger

resilience and

better crisis-

response

capacity

Experience exchange

facilitating more rapid

reactions in the face of

unexpected socio-

economic crises in the

2021-2025 period, and

the aftermath of the

COVID-19 pandemic

and Russia’s war of

Recurrent Not

applicable

Exchanges

through the PES

Network

supported PES to

provide more

tailored support

to individuals

affected by the

COVID-19 crisis

and displaced

Not

applicable

Exchanges

through the PES

Network

supported PES to

provide support

to employers

through the

implementation

of ad hoc

measures, e.g.

Not

applicable

The PES Network acted

as a crucial space for

cooperation and

information exchange in

the immediate aftermath,

and to tackle the medium

to long-term

consequences of the

COVID-19 pandemic and

the influx of Ukrainian

99

aggression against

Ukraine in particular.

Ukrainian

persons (e.g.

simplified

registration

procedures and

tailored job-

matching

support).

short

employment

schemes.

refugees following

Russia’s war of

aggression to Ukraine.

Ad hoc activities (e.g.

events and surveys)

allowed PES to learn

from each other and

implement measures

taking into account the

experience of, and

lessons learned by, other

PES, ultimately helping

them coordinate

approaches to skills

validation, fast-track

profiling, and

cooperation with

partners.

Increased

awareness of EU

employment

policies among

PES staff

Increased knowledge

and awareness among

PES of EU policy

developments in the

area of employment

Recurrent Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

PES regularly received

policy updates as part of

PES Network Board

meetings and AFEPA

meetings, with several

PES sharing this

knowledge internally,

with other PES staff. This

has helped PES increase

their knowledge and

awareness of relevant EU

policy developments and

to anticipate and adapt to

emerging priorities.

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT

The consultation strategy and respective consultation activities aimed to collect data and/or opinions

from key stakeholders, to gather evidence to answer the evaluation questions under all evaluation

criteria.

1. Overview of consultation activities

Table 1. Overview of stakeholders consulted in all consultation activities

Stakeholder category Specific stakeholder group Case study

interviews Interviews

Targeted

surveys Workshops

Virtual

policy

Delphi

Stakeholders directly

involved in the PES

Network 

Heads of PES (Heads of PES) ✓ ✓ ✓

Advisors for European PES

Affairs (AFEPAs) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EMCO ✓ ✓ ✓

Steering Group

on Benchlearning ✓

European Commission ✓

Contractors involved in the

delivery of PES Network

activities

✓

Stakeholders indirectly

involved in the PES

Network 

DG EMPL Geodesk officers ✓ ✓

PES staff members ✓

National and regional level

policymakers

Labour and social affairs

ministries ✓ ✓

National and regional

authorities in charge of

employment ✓

Organisations working

on labour market topics

and/or representing the

voice of PES users

EU and national level social

partners ✓ ✓ ✓

EU and national level civil

society organisations ✓ ✓ ✓

EU and

International organisations ✓ ✓

Other relevant

stakeholders Researchers and academics ✓ ✓

1.1 Call for evidence The call for evidence174 was launched on the Have Your Say website of the European Commission,

and open for contributions from any interested stakeholder between 28 November 2025 and 26

December 2025. Five responses were received. The feedback from the call for evidence highlights

generally positive perceptions of the PES Network’s role, while also suggesting areas where its

visibility and analytical capabilities could be strengthened. One business stakeholder emphasised the

need for greater promotion of the Network at national level and improved accessibility for jobseekers

174European Commission, European Network of Public Employment Services – evaluation on the application of Decision

No 573/2014/EU

101

and employers through a public-facing platform. An NGO welcomed the evaluation initiative and

praised the Network’s societal relevance, particularly its attention to gender parity and engagement of

specialised NGOs, urging policymakers to preserve these features. Two EU citizens expressed strong

support for cross-border cooperation in employment policy, noting its role in strengthening labour

mobility, social security, and fairness in the EU labour market. Another citizen proposed the creation

of an EU-wide monitoring tool to assess labour mobility and retention. Overall, the

feedback highlights both the value of the PES Network and the desire for enhanced transparency,

analytical tools, and sustained commitment to inclusive labour market governance.

1.2 Interviews The semi-structured interviews aimed to gather detailed input from those directly involved in the PES

Network (the PES Network Secretariat, contractors involved in the delivery of activities,

Benchlearning Steering Group members, and the previous EMCO chair), indirect stakeholders of the

PES Network (e.g. DG EMPL representatives from policy and geographical units) and organisations

working on labour market topics and/or representing the voice of PES end-users (EU agencies and

structures, international agencies, social partners and civil society organisations). In total, 32

interviews were carried out with 45 stakeholders. Where relevant, group interviews took place with

European Commission representatives to maximise outreach and to consult as many relevant units as

possible. The interviews included questions on all five evaluation criteria.

Table 2 - Online semi-structured interviews completed

Stakeholder category Stakeholder No. of

interviews

Stakeholders directly involved in the PES Network 

Former EMCO chair 1

PES Network Secretariat 1

Benchlearning Steering Group members (CY;

LT; SE) 2

Contractors delivering PES Network activities 2

Stakeholders indirectly involved in the PES Network 

Selected DG EMPL geodesk officers (SI, DE/AT,

RO, BG, ES, PT) 4

Selected DG EMPL representatives (DG EMPL

B1, B2, B3, D1, E1, E3, G1) 7

Organisations working on labour market topics

and/or representing the voice of PES users

Eurofound 1

Cedefop 1

European Training Foundation (ETF) 1

European Labour Authority (ELA) 1

OECD 1

102

Euroguidance 1

EURES Network 1

World Association of Public Employment

Services (WAPES) 1

European Association of Service Providers for

Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) 1

Confederation of Family Organisations in the

European Union (COFACE) 1

European Disability Forum (EDF) 1

European Network of Social Integration

Enterprises (ENSIE) 1

Business Europe 1

SME United 1

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) 1

1.3 Targeted surveys The two targeted surveys aimed to gather evidence from stakeholders directly and indirectly involved

in the PES Network: the first survey directly targeted the 33 AFEPAs of the PES Network, and the

second survey targeted EMCO members and national labour and social affairs ministry

representatives. The surveys were prepared using EU Survey, with closed and open-ended questions

addressing the key evaluation criteria and were open from 15 October until 17 November (AFEPAS)

/19 November (EMCO/Ministries) 2025. There were 31 valid responses to the survey of AFEPAs2 and

22 valid responses to the survey of EMCO members/national labour and social affairs ministry

representatives.

1.4 Workshops Two in-person evaluation workshops were organised alongside planned PES Network meetings. The

first workshop was organised as part of the in-person AFEPA meeting that took place on 9 October

2025 in Brussels and aimed to gather feedback from AFEPAs on all evaluation questions. The second

workshop took place on 12 December 2025 as part of the PES Network Board meeting held in

Copenhagen and aimed to gather feedback from Heads of PES to deepen the evidence gathered from

the prior consultation activities, identify and fill gaps in the data collected to date, and collect specific

examples of results and impacts of the PES Network.

1.5 Case study interviews The case study interviews aimed to gather evidence from national level stakeholders in the selected

countries across all evaluation criteria. The case study interviews took place in two phases, October –

December 2025 for the first three countries (DE, ES, SI) and January – March 2026 for the second

three countries (BG, FI, LT). A total of 47 interviews were conducted across different countries and

stakeholder categories. There was some variance in the total number of interviews carried out for each

103

case study depending on stakeholder availability; risks of overrepresentation of the views of any

specific stakeholders in countries where there were less interviews were limited by ensuring that they

were represented all views in a balanced manner.

Table 3 - Organisations consulted during the case study interviews

Country Stakeholder category Organisation/Role No. of

interviews

Bulgaria

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Directorate General of the Bulgarian Employment

Agency (AFEPA) 1

Employment Agency (Head of PES) 1

National and regional level policy

makers

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 1

Employment Agency Directorate 1

Employment Agency, Statistics Department 1

Germany

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Federal Employment Agency (AFEPA; Head of PES;

and alternate member of the PES Network; Head of IT) 4

National and regional level policy

makers

Regional Office of BA for Northern Germany 1

Jobcenter City of Nürnberg 1

Organisations working on labour market

topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

BDA - Association of German Employers 2

German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) 1

ver.di Trade Union 1

Finland

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of

Finland (AFEPA; Head of PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Association of Finnish Municipalities 1

(Keha) Development and Administrative Services'

Centre 1

Helsinki Region Employment Area 1

Organisations working on labour market

topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

University of Tampere 1

Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) 1

Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions

(Employment policy specialist; Senior employment

policy specialist)

2

The VATES Foundation – Promoting Employment of

People with Disabilities 1

104

Employment Industry Finland 1

Lithuania

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Employment Service of Lithuania (AFEPA; Head of

PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Ministry of Social Security and Labour 1

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1

Youth Affairs Agency 1

Organisations working on labour market

topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

Kaunas Industry and Employers Association,

Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists 1

Lithuanian Engineering and Technology Industry

Association 1

Vilnius Caritas 1

Slovenia

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Employment Service of Slovenia (AFEPA; Head of

PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development 1

Organisations working on labour market

topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

Trade Union Youth Plus 1

National Youth Council of Slovenia 1

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Vocational

Education and Training 1

Spain

Stakeholders directly involved in the

PES Network 

Spanish Employment Service (SEPE) (AFEPA; Head

of PES) 2

National and regional level policy

makers

Employment service of Galicia 1

Employment service of Navarro 1

Organisations working on labour market

topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

Spanish confederation of

Business Organisations (CEOE) 1

General Union of Workers (UGT) 1

Zabaltzen Sartu 1

Total 47

1.6 Virtual Policy Delphi

The virtual policy Delphi took place in the final phase of the evaluation in April 2026, as a structured,

online method for gathering expert opinions, using an anonymous questionnaire to validate a set of

conclusions to the evaluation. The focus of the Delphi was on forward-looking elements of the draft

conclusions and lessons learned. To implement the policy Delphi, a panel of 12 stakeholders with

105

relevant expertise was contacted. These stakeholders include High-level Advisors for the study, the

current EMCO chair, EU social partners, civil society representatives and other networks. Of these,

eight responded to the Delphi.

Table 4. Delphi respondents

Stakeholder category Stakeholder

Stakeholders directly involved in the PES

Network  Current EMCO chair

Stakeholders indirectly involved in the PES

Network DG EMPL Mutual learning programme network

Organisations/individuals working on labour

market topics and/or representing the voice of

PES users

High level advisors (x2)

European Disability Forum (EDF)

Business Europe

SME United

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)

2. Methodology and tools used for data processing

Online semi-structured interviews: the write-ups from the interviews were prepared in individual

word documents, broken down by question and respective evaluation criterion. These write-ups were

subsequently uploaded to the qualitative analysis tool: ATLAS.ti. The Research Team used this tool

to undertake a systematic thematic analysis, drawing out key issues and findings under each of the

main topic headings.

Targeted surveys: the analysis of results was carried out using both quantitative and qualitative

methods. The quantitative data analysis included the frequency distribution for each variable related

to the closed-ended questions, and cross-tabulations between specific variables and characteristics of

respondents and between specific variables, though the low number of responses limited the

possibilities for this. To avoid misleading the reader, the total number of respondents have been

provided as part of the analysis (i.e. 24 out of 31 respondents), rather than percentages. For the

qualitative data analysis, data was classified by related variable and analysed to identify additional

information.

Workshops, detailed notes were taken throughout each workshop which were used to triangulate and

fine-tune the findings.

Virtual policy Delphi: focuses on forward-looking elements, which falls outside the specific scope of

the evaluation.

106

3. Overview of results of consultation activities

3.1 Effectiveness 28 of the 31 respondents to the survey of AFEPAs agreed that the PES Network Decision objective

to assess and increase the transparency of PES performance through Benchlearning had been

achieved. This view was echoed by the majority of EU-level interviewees, national and regional case

study interviewees, and workshop evidence. AFEPA respondents to the survey (e.g. from BE, EL, ES,

SI) specified that the self-assessment process of Benchlearning is key in supporting this self-reflection

and cultural change - in turn promoting transparency of PES performance. Multiple respondents to the

EU-level interviews and participants in the workshop with AFEPAs also reported that the assessment

of PES by PES creates a judgment-free space, which increases transparency and an openness to

constructive self-reflection. In line with this, all 31 respondents to the survey of AFEPAs reported that

the PES Network Benchlearning activities have contributed to better identification of PES

development areas to a large (21) or some (10) extent.

All consulted stakeholders across all consultation activities consider that the PES Network has

facilitated mutual learning and the uptake of good practices. Mutual learning activities in particular

are viewed very positively, with the vast majority of AFEPAs stating in the survey that PES

Network outputs facilitated mutual learning in their PES to either a large or some extent (i.e. an average

of 27 respondents out of 31 across all mutual learning activities). Stakeholders also generally agreed

as to which of the mutual learning activities have been the most useful, namely TRWs, TLDs and

WGs, suggesting that these activities are leading to greater uptake of good practices3. In terms of

additional outcomes of mutual learning activities, there was consensus among AFEPAs and Heads of

PES that mutual learning played a key role in helping PES respond quickly to major shocks,

including COVID-19 and the influx of displaced Ukrainians, enabling rapid adaptation of services and

sharing of crisis-response measures. Consulted AFEPAs from decentralised PES reported that mutual

learning accelerated understanding of how to manage decentralisation, by providing concrete and

comparable solutions that could be adapted to national contexts. There was also consensus

across AFEPAs that the strong involvement of Heads of PES ensures that lessons learned are valued

and actively supported at leadership level, and that the variety of formats of mutual learning activities

increases the uptake of good practices. On the other hand, limited financial resources and competing

organisational priorities – reported specifically by smaller PES- make it more difficult to implement

good practices gained through mutual learning.

AFEPAs responding to the survey considered PES Network activities largely successful in

supporting cooperation. The EU social partners, including both worker and

employer representatives, however called for more systematic collaboration between the Network and

their organisations, especially on data sharing and policy priority-setting. In addition, stakeholders

directly and indirectly involved in the Network both felt that the degree of cooperation between the

PES Network and EU-level NGOs could be improved, with calls from EU-level NGOs interviewed

for strengthened cooperation. EMCO and ministry survey respondents viewed cooperation with the

PES Network as successful overall whilst also providing ideas for further streamlining cooperation.

107

Across the consultation activities, AFEPAs and EMCO/ministries reported strong agreement that

the PES Network has contributed to the modernisation and strengthening of PES. All 31 AFEPAs

surveyed agreed that this objective had been achieved, and 20 of 22 EMCO/ministries respondents

expressed similarly positive views, with 2 respondents stating that they did not know. Benchlearning

and mutual learning were seen as important drivers of progress, with evidence from workshops with

Heads of PES and AFEPAs echoing that PES at all levels of maturity gained from these processes.

AFEPAs consulted during the workshop highlighted that integration services and personalised

jobseeker support benefited most from Network activities, with Heads of PES also agreeing.

Digitalisation emerged as a major area of progress, with 25 of 31 AFEPAs in the survey reporting

improvements in this area triggered by Benchlearning and mutual learning activities, with direct and

some indirect national and regional stakeholders of the PES Network interviewed as part of the case

studies highlighting this point in particular. The consultations indicate that recent PES strategic

outputs, including opinion papers and policy positions, have enhanced the PES Network’s capacity

to articulate shared priorities and provide contributions to policy development at EU level.

Conversely, stakeholders across consultations (EU- and national-level labour market stakeholders,

AFEPAs, Heads of PES, and EMCO and national ministry representatives) frequently highlighted the

Network’s contribution to policy monitoring and implementation, particularly its provision of

concrete, practitioner-driven evidence on implementation challenges. Engagement with EMCO was

identified as the Network’s most effective avenue for influence, given its structured processes and

formal follow-up. AFEPAs emphasised in the survey and workshop that participation in policy

discussions provides valuable opportunities both to shape EU-level dialogue and to understand how

national implementation can be strengthened.

The results of the survey of AFEPAs suggest that the vast majority of respondents (25 out of 31)

were positive about the Network’s contribution to supporting vulnerable groups and

labour-market integration, with a large majority reporting that these areas were addressed to a large

or some extent. By contrast, external stakeholders to the Network, such as EMCO/ministries survey

respondents (5 out of 17), and interviewed social partners and civil society organisations, were less

convinced of the extent of this contribution and called for stronger engagement with organisations

representing vulnerable groups. The priority improving the functioning and inclusiveness of labour

market, was considered to be tackled to a large or at least some extent by the majority of surveyed

AFEPAs (i.e. 25 out of 31) and EMCO/ministries representatives (i.e. 12 out of 17). Stakeholders from

across surveys and interviews (i.e. AFEPAs, EMCO representatives, national authorities, as well as

interviewees representing EU and international institutions and agencies, social partners, and civil

society), further identified skills shortages as extensively covered by the Network’s activities and

outputs. Labour mobility was seen as a less prominent area, with only 3 out of 31 AFEPA survey

respondents reporting contribution of the Network to a large extent on this topic. EU-level stakeholders

interviewed highlighted the Network’s important role in contributing expertise on Active Labour

Market Policies (ALMPs), noting that its concrete operational insights help inform EU-level

discussions. However, some stakeholders, particularly trade union representatives interviewed,

suggested that the Network could go further in supporting PES to enhance evaluation and assessment

of ALMPs. Lastly, stakeholders highlighted that gender equality had been addressed only to a limited

extent (i.e. 11 out 17 respondents to EMCO/ministries survey, and 12 out of 31 AFEPA survey

respondents), reflecting a gap in the Network’s thematic coverage.

108

3.2 Efficiency Across all stakeholder groups consulted, the Network was widely regarded as

delivering important benefits, particularly through Benchlearning and mutual learning

activities. Stakeholders highlighted the value of access to best practices, Benchlearning, and peer

learning, which enhance service delivery, organisational performance, and professional development.

Consulted AFEPAs and Heads of PES during the workshops noted that shared tools and peer learning

foster economies of scale, reduce duplication, and enable “copy–adapt” solutions. Representatives

from smaller PES tended to view the benefits of the PES Network even more positively, emphasising

the significant cost savings gained by accessing expertise through the Network instead of external

consultants. However, AFEPAs consulted through the survey and the workshops consistently indicated

that Benchlearning is the most resource-intensive activity, particularly during assessment years.

During the workshops, AFEPAs and Heads of PES also highlighted additional tasks such as hosting

delegations, contributing to capacity surveys, and engaging in knowledge-sharing activities like

podcasts and reports that can be resource-intensive across all sizes of PES.

Although the perception of value of the PES Network Decision was overall very positive, some

consulted AFEPAs acknowledged remaining challenges to efficiency. These included limited internal

resources, language barriers, and timing misalignments with national reform cycles, which can

constrain participation or slow implementation of lessons learned. Representatives (Benchlearning

Steering Group Members, AFEPAs) from more mature PES occasionally reported that tangible

benefits were less visible due to their already mature systems and suggested improving integration of

Network outputs into internal processes. Nevertheless, the majority across all stakeholder groups

stressed that the Network’s collaborative culture provides a high return on investment and remains

strategically important for policy alignment and foresight.

A majority of AFEPAs believed the Network’s work during 2021–2025 was cost-effective and that

benefits outweighed costs (14 of the 31 respondents stated that benefits significantly exceeded costs,

and nine said benefits slightly exceeded costs), with WGs and TLDs most frequently rated “very

cost-effective,” followed by mutual learning events and Benchlearning assessments.

Most direct stakeholders of the Network (AFEPAs, Heads of PES, Benchlearning Steering Group

Members), opposed scaling back activities and strongly supported maintaining the breadth of the

Network’s work, noting the high value of in-person collaboration, with consistently positive views of

the Network’s management and governance structures.

3.3 Coherence Consultations across all stakeholder groups indicate broad agreement that coherence between the

PES Network and wider EU and international policy frameworks is high. A majority of

respondents from the AFEPAs and EMCO/national ministries surveys saw strong coherence across

most policy areas, particularly employment, education and training, and active support to employment.

Workshop participants (AFEPAs and Heads of PES) further highlighted that the PES Network plays a

dual role: it both familiarises PES with key EU policy initiatives (“top-down” coherence) and enables

PES to feed operational insights into EU policymaking (“bottom-up” coherence), strengthening

complementarity across governance levels. EU-level interviewees (representatives of the European

Commission, EMCO, EU agencies, and international organisations), as well as national-level

109

interviews consulted from case study countries, largely supported this positive view, noting

particularly strong alignment with the employment dimensions of the European Semester, EURES, the

Youth Guarantee, the EU Talent Pool and the Quality Jobs Roadmap. EU agencies such

as Eurofound, Cedefop, ELA, and ETF emphasised coherence between their mandates and the PES

Network’s work.

AFEPAs and EMCO members/national ministries also found the PES Network to be coherent with

EU funding instruments, especially ESF+ (26 out of 31 AFEPA respondents and 15 out of

17 EMCO members/national ministries respondents reported coherence to a large or some extent).

However, some EU-level stakeholders interviewed found that further synergies could be developed

with ESF+ governance structures and that PES capacity to manage EU-funded projects varied across

Member States. By contrast, coherence with EU Enlargement policy was perceived as somewhat

weaker, though still largely positive, by EU-level stakeholders interviewed, with ongoing initiatives

involving Western Balkan PES increasingly strengthening alignment over time.

Across all stakeholder categories, coherence with labour mobility and migration policies was

viewed positively. Some EU-level agencies and international network representatives interviewed

recommended even closer cooperation with neighbouring-region organisations and extra-EU networks

such as WAPES, especially in light of growing policy focus on labour mobility and skills shortages.

Conversely, coherence with broader policy agendas, such as the UN SDGs, EU Competitiveness

Strategy, and the European Green Deal, was seen as more mixed. For example, AFEPAs viewed

coherence as stronger on these policy areas, whereas EMCO member/national ministry respondents

viewed coherence as weaker which partly reflects the varying levels of awareness and engagement

across groups.

Both AFEPAs and EMCO member/national ministry survey respondents overwhelmingly

reported high coherence between PES Network priorities and domestic policies (27 out of 31

AFEPA respondents and 18 out of 22 EMCO member/national ministry respondents reported

coherence to a large or some extent).This is supported by the fact that many countries integrate EU

employment priorities directly into their national strategies and the bottom-up design of the PES

Network Work Programme, which enables members to shape priorities based on national needs.

Finally, stakeholders across AFEPAs, Heads of PES, and European Commission representatives

agreed that internal coherence within the PES Network is strong, with governance structures

(Board, Secretariat) and processes (work programmes, annual reports) considered appropriate and

effective in achieving objectives. Workshop discussions emphasised the value of mutual trust,

interpersonal relationships, and the layered governance structure in enabling consensus building.

3.4 EU added value Consultations of AFEPAs, Heads of PES, and EU-level and national-level stakeholders indicate

consensus that the PES Network delivers clear added value at EU level, particularly in fostering

cooperation between PES and a broader range of labour market stakeholders. For example, survey

results show that most AFEPAs (21 out of 31) consider cooperation with external stakeholders to

require EU-level action, a view also supported in AFEPA and Heads of PES workshops and interviews

110

with EU agencies and EU social partners, where stakeholders highlighted the Network’s role in

expanding collaboration beyond national boundaries.

AFEPAs and EMCO members/national ministry representatives furthermore both believe that the

majority of the objectives of the PES Network Decision can best be met by EU-level action, with

broad recognition that bilateral exchanges cannot generate comparable benefits and that the Network’s

continuation is essential to maintaining structured collaboration among PES. Social

partners representing both workers and employers interviewed from Spain (case studies) also noted

that eliminating the Network would weaken their capacity to advocate for improvements, as

comparative evidence from EU peers is a central argument in national debates.

Information from all stakeholders reveal agreement that discontinuing the PES Decision would have

negative consequences. Stakeholders reported that ending the Decision beyond 2027 would result in

a decline in structured collaboration (i.e., through Benchlearning and mutual learning) and a shift

towards fragmented, selective cooperation. AFEPAs and Heads of PES consulted via the workshops

further expressed concerns regarding the financial and operational costs of replacing

Network-provided expertise with external contractors, which would reduce efficiency and undermine

existing cooperation structures, as well as representing a loss of resources already invested in the

Network.

3.5 Relevance Across all stakeholder groups, including AFEPAs, EMCO representatives, EU

institutions, international organisations, and social partners, there was agreement that the objectives

of the PES Decision remain relevant to addressing current and emerging challenges. AFEPA

survey respondents highlighted the relevance of practical learning tools, such as MAPs, toolkits, and

good practices, especially under resource constraints and rising expectations of PES performance. The

general objective of encouraging cooperation and mutual learning was viewed by both stakeholder

groups as highly relevant throughout the implementation period. Survey data also highlights this

objective as particularly important in light of evolving social and labour-market contexts, with

AFEPAs in particular (also during the workshop and case study interviews) emphasising that

cooperation has become even more essential in responding to major shocks such as the COVID-19

pandemic and broader structural changes in the labour market. The specific objectives of the amended

PES Decision were also viewed as very relevant by AFEPAs and EMCO members/national

ministries, corroborating that these objectives continue to align closely with national needs and

EU-level priorities. Stakeholders across surveys, case study interviews, and workshops highlighted

that the PES Network had shown strong adaptability in addressing themes such as digitalisation, labour

and skills shortages, green skills development, and the impact of demographic change. However,

several EU-level interviewees noted that some areas, such as gender equality and support for older

workers, had been addressed to a more limited extent, signalling opportunities for more focused

attention in future work programmes.

Finally, most stakeholders (AFEPAs, EU and national level civil society organisations, EU agencies,

EMCO representatives, social partners) emphasised that the PES Network’s relevance is reinforced

by the growing complexity of labour market transformations, including the green and digital

transitions, AI-driven changes in recruitment and service delivery, and persistent skills and labour

111

shortages. Representatives of EU institutions and international organisations interviewed highlighted

the increasing need for structured cooperation across Member States to address these cross-cutting

challenges, with many interviewees identifying enhanced partnerships with academics, labour-market

experts, and other EU initiatives as key to future relevance. The overall conclusion from all

stakeholders is that the PES Network’s objectives remain not only relevant but increasingly necessary

for coordinating responses to interconnected employment and social challenges across the EU.

112

ANNEX VI. CHANGES IN THE PES DECISION

This Annex provides an overview and comparison of the Objectives and activities of the PES Network

included in Decision 573/2014/EU and the amendments introduced by Decision 2020/1782. The

amendments introduced in 2020 are highlighted in bold.

Objectives and activities under amended Decision 573/2014/EU

Article 3 Objectives

The aim of this Decision is to encourage cooperation between Member States through the Network in the field

of employment, within the areas of PES responsibility, in order to contribute to the implementation of the

Union’s employment policies. This will also help implement the principles in the European Pillar of Social

Rights, contribute to the European Green Deal objectives and pursue the achievement of the United

Nations Sustainable Development Goals, thereby supporting:

(a) all vulnerable social groups with high unemployment rates, especially older workers and young persons not

in employment, education or training (NEETs) as well as people with disabilities and people facing

discrimination on multiple grounds;

(b) decent and sustainable work;

(c) the better functioning and inclusiveness of the labour markets;

(ca) gender equality;

(d) the identification of skills shortages and the provision of information on their extent and location, as well as

the better matching of the skills of job-seekers with the needs of employers, including through the

identification of needs for vocational training, as well as the employability of job-seekers and the

prevention of unemployment, for example through career counselling and training;

(e) the better integration of labour markets;

(f) increased voluntary geographical and occupational mobility on a fair basis to meet specific labour market

needs;

(g) the integration of persons excluded from the labour market as part of the combat against social exclusion;

(h) the evaluation and assessment of active labour market initiatives and their effective and efficient

implementation.

Article 4 -Initiatives of the Network

1. Within the areas of PES responsibility, the Network shall, in particular, carry out the following initiatives:

(a) the development and implementation of Union-wide, evidence-based Benchlearning among PES to compare,

with appropriate methodology, the performance of their activities in the following areas:

(i) contribution to reducing unemployment for all age, gender and vulnerable groups;

(ii) contribution to reducing the duration of unemployment and reducing inactivity, so as to address long-

term and structural unemployment, as well as social exclusion;

(iii) filling of vacancies (including through voluntary labour mobility);

(iv) customer satisfaction with PES services;

113

(b) the provision of mutual assistance, either in the form of peer-to-peer or group activities, through cooperation,

exchanges of information, experiences and staff between the members of the Network, including support for

the implementation of PES-related country-specific recommendations issued by the Council upon request by

the Member State or the PES concerned;

(c) contribute to the modernisation and strengthening of PES in key areas, in view of the Union’s employment

and social policies, and having in mind the European Pillar of Social Rights, the European Green Deal

and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as well as challenges related to digitalisation, the

changing world of work and work patterns as well as demographic changes;

(d) prepare reports at the request of the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own

initiative;

(e) contribute to the implementation of relevant policy initiatives;

(f) the adoption and implementation of its annual work programme setting out its working methods,

deliverables and the details related to the implementation of Benchlearning as well as dissemination and

cooperation strategies;

(g) the promotion and sharing of best practices on the identification of NEETs, on the development of initiatives

to ensure those young people gain the skills necessary to enter and remain in the labour market, and on the

integration of the LTU and other vulnerable groups into the labour market.

Article 5 - Cooperation

The Network shall develop cooperation with relevant labour market stakeholders, including other providers of

employment and social services and the social partners, and, where appropriate, Union agencies in the areas

of employment, social policy, gender equality, and education and training, organisations representing

unemployed persons or other vulnerable groups, equality bodies, vocational training organisations, NGOs

working in the fields of employment and just transition, and regional and local authorities, by involving

them in relevant activities and meetings of the Network and by exchanging information and data with them.

Where appropriate, the Network may exchange best practices with relevant public employment services

from third countries.

ANNEX VII. BENCHLEARNING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND RESULTS

Table 1: Benchlearning Excellence Model for 2nd, 3rd and 4th cycle: evolution of enablers (New enabler / merge of enablers / enabler number change

Excellence

Model

2nd Cycle

3rd Cycle

4th Cycle

Section A: Strategic performance management

A1 Performance management by target-setting Performance management by target-setting Performance management by target-setting

A2 Targets into key performance indicators (KPI) Targets into key performance indicators (KPI) Targets into key performance indicators (KPI)

A3 Following up performance management Following up performance measurement Following up performance measurement

A4 Use of the results of performance management Use of the results of performance management Use of the results of performance management

Section B: Design of operational processes

B1 Process definition and standardisation Process definition and standardisation Process definition and standardisation

B2 Implementation of support structure Implementation of support structure Information and communications technology (ICT) and

data management

B3 Quality management Quality management Quality management

B4 Channel management and blended services Channel management and blended services Channel management and blended services

Section C: Sustainable activation and management of transitions

C1 Holistic profiling Holistic profiling Outreach, profiling and segmentation

C2 Segmentation Segmentation Individual action plan and ALMP measures

C3 Individual action plan and ALMP measures Individual action plan and ALMP measures Early intervention to avoid unemployment

C4 Early intervention to avoid unemployment, and

implementation of Youth Guarantee

Early intervention to avoid unemployment Implementation of services

C5 Early intervention to reduce the duration of

unemployment

Early intervention to reduce the duration of

unemployment

-

C6 Implementation of service and activation

strategy

Implementation of service and activation strategy -

115

Section D: Relations with Employers

D1 Employer strategy and management Employer strategy and management Employer strategy

D2 Specialized unit for employer services Specialised unit for employer services Specialised unit for employer services

D3 Matching vacancies and jobseekers Matching vacancies and jobseekers Matching vacancies and jobseekers

Section E: Evidence-based design and implementation of PES services

E1 Ex-ante and ex-post evaluation Ex-ante and ex-post evaluation Evidence-based service design and implementation

E2 Pilot projects Pilot projects Pilot projects

E3 Communication of evaluation results Communication of evaluation results Management of change and innovation

E4 Management of change and innovation Management of change and innovation -

Section F: Management of partnerships and stakeholders

F1 Identification and structuring of relevant

stakeholders

Identification and structuring of relevant

stakeholders

Identification and structuring of relevant stakeholders

F2 Partnerships building Partnership building Partnership building and managing

F3 Management of partnerships with supervising

authorities

Management of partnerships with supervising

authorities

Management of partnerships with service providers

F4 Managing of partnerships with social partners Management of partnerships with social partners -

F5 Management of partnerships with service

providers

Management of partners with service providers -

F6 Management of partnerships with institutions

involved in the Youth Guarantee

- -

Section G: Allocation of PES Resources

G1 Human resources Human resources HR strategy, management and corporate culture

G2 Budget Budget Empowerment of staff

G3 - - Organisational resilience and business continuity

G4 - - Budget allocation and use

Section H: Identification and implementation of a reform agenda

116

H1 Initialisation - -

H2 Design - -

H3 Mobilisation - -

H4 Implementation - -

H5 Reinforcement - -

Section I: Crisis Management

I1 - Organisational Resilience -

I2 - Reaction to an emergency situation -

I3 - Communication, information and empowerment

for a culture of error tolerance

-

Source: Benchlearning Manual 2nd cycle, 3rd cycle, 4th cycle

Between the second and third cycles, changes to the Excellence Model were limited. Regarding the Model itself, all sections (A to G) and enablers

remained identical. However, the second cycle’s specific section H on the identification and deployment of reforms was removed in the third cycle,

replaced by a new Section I—"Crisis Management"—with a focus on managing the COVID-19 crisis (see table x).

The differences between the third and fourth cycles were far more substantial. The 4th cycle has introduced several innovations aimed at increasing

the coherence, relevance, and effectiveness of the methodology. At the end of the 3rd cycle, the Excellence Model was subject to a comprehensive

review, leading to a streamlined structure with fewer Sections and Enablers to improve user‑friendliness, the integration of new concepts to strengthen

alignment with the 2020 EFQM model (notably digitalisation, sustainability, and ecosystem approaches), and the introduction of more robust

benchmarks to better equip PES to respond to customer needs and emerging trends. From an organisational standpoint, a series of innovations

fundamentally impacted on-site visits. The host PES was given several new options: from conducting its evaluation fully online if preferred, to

assessing an enabler in depth (13 PES), organising a visit to a specialised unit instead of a local agency (6 PES) or inviting partners to participate in

the Section F evaluation discussion. A mandate disclaimer could be used if certain Model activities fell outside the PES’s remit. The on-site visit was

shortened by one day, condensing interviews, analysis, and feedback into three days.

Table 2: Main findings from the 3rd and the 4th cycles of Benchlearning

Excellence model

3rd cycle: main findings (see here) 4th cycle : main findings

Section A Strategic performance

management

Areas of progress:

- Improved alignment of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with

strategic objectives.

- Shift from output-oriented to outcome-focused metrics (e.g.,

employment retention, long-term employability).

- Regional/local offices given a more active role in target

planning.

Challenges:

Further development of outcome-focused KPIs

Top performing PES

- Align national strategic objectives with regional/local

operational goals.

- Use evidence-based targets (based on labour market

forecasts, analytics).

- SMART KPIs with stakeholder engagement (employers,

jobseekers, staff).

Lower-performing PES:

- Targets often legally rather than strategically driven.

- Top-down, input-focused metrics (e.g., job applications

processed) instead of outcomes.

Section B

Design of operational processes

Areas of progress:

- Flexible channel management: PES rapidly adapted to

digital/remote services during COVID-19, with many retaining

hybrid models post-pandemic.

Challenges:

- Quality management remained underdeveloped

- Implementation of IT support structure supporting operational

processes

Top performing PES

- Customer-centric process design

- Strong ICT infrastructure supports service delivery and

data analytics.

- Coherent channel management strategy (guiding use of

digital/face-to-face services based on needs)

Lower-performing PES:

- Quality management weakest area for all but one PES

- Need to modernise IT systems, limited data sharing.

- Limited proactive use of digital or blended services

118

Section C Sustainable activation and

management of transitions

Areas of progress:

- Increased focus on vulnerable groups (LTU, migrants, NEETs,

persons with disabilities).

Challenges:

- Digitalisation gaps: difficulties with automation, data sharing,

and digital service access for jobseekers with low digital skills.

- Fragmented or reactive approaches for quality management;

quality seen as a compliance requirement rather than a tool for

improvement.

Top performing PES

- Data-driven profiling of jobseekers (skills, barriers,

labour market demand).

- Dynamic Individual Action Plans (IAPs) linked to

Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) (e.g., wage

subsidies, training).

- Proactive outreach to vulnerable groups (e.g., NEETs,

older jobseekers, persons with disabilities).

Lower-performing PES:

- Basic segmentation (e.g. based only on demographics)

- IAPs often seen as administrative tasks rather than

strategic tools.

- Limited preventive measures for at-risk workers.

Section D Relations with employers Areas of progress:

- Stronger employer engagement to address skills shortages.

- Matching systems improved

Challenges:

- Matching activities still relying on manual processes in many

PES.

- Lack of systematic employer strategy or segmentation of

employer needs.

Top performing PES:

- Clear employer engagement strategies

- Co-creation of services with employers

- Single points of contact for key employer

groups/dedicated teams

Lower-performing PES:

- No systematic employer strategy.

- Low quality of vacancies data.

Section E Evidence-based design and

implementation of PES services (3rd)

Evidence-based service design and

change management (4th)

Areas of progress:

- Widespread use of pilot projects to test new services before

scaling.

Challenges:

- Evaluation culture globally limited

- Lack of systematic monitoring of pilot outcomes to inform

strategy

Top performing PES:

- Structured evaluation units

- Pilot projects aligned with strategic goals

Lower-performing PES:

- Change management lacking structured strategies

- Culture of continuous improvement lacking

- Weak monitoring and scaling of successful pilots.

119

Section F: Management of

partnerships and stakeholders (3rd)

Management of ecosystem (4th)

Areas of progress:

- Functioning partnerships at all levels

Challenges:

- Lack of genuine partnership strategy in most PES.

- Limited mapping of stakeholders to align with PES objectives.

Top performing PES:

- Stakeholders mapping and ecosystem management.

- Partnerships integral part of day‑to‑day operations in

most PES.

Lower-performing PES:

- Partnerships often bilateral rather than ecosystem wide.

- Limited performance monitoring of external service

providers.

- Lack of systematic ecosystem steering.

- Limited use of partner feedback.

Section G Allocation of PES

resources (3rd)

PES resources and organisational

resilience (4th)

Areas of progress:

- High staff motivation during COVID-19

Challenges:

- Ageing workforce, need for knowledge retention strategies.

Top performing PES:

- Cohesive HR strategies.

- Proactive Business continuity.

- Staff empowerment (e.g. training, knowledge-sharing,

error-tolerant culture).

Lower-performing PES:

- Top-down HR policies, leading to high turnover.

- Ageing workforce and retention issues.

- Budget allocation lacking efficiency metrics

- Over-reliance on EU funding in some PES.

Section I Crisis management (3rd) Highest level of maturity across all areas

Leadership and empowerment helped PES adapt quickly to COVID-

19.

120

Annex VIII: Examples of PES Network’s impact175

This Annex provides the examples of particular impact the PES Network has had on operational

cooperation related to PES’ services; the impact on enhanced cooperation between PES services as a

result of PES Decision, the impact of Benchlearning on digitalisation, performance and employer

management; examples of the uptake of good practices by type of PES Network activity; Impacts of

mutual learning in periods of crisis and evidence of PES Network adaptation to changes/trends.

Additional supporting examples are included in Annex 7 of the study.

Table 1. Supporting operational cooperation among PES

Area Examples of sharing tools and piloting common approaches

Green transition

A common definition green skills and jobs: Between 2023 and 2025, the PES Network

Taxonomies WG worked to identify the most suitable approach to build a common

definition of green jobs and piloted it with both national and EU level taxonomies, using

ESCO data. The work inspired the Swedish PES to further advance its work by

developing a comprehensive dataset for green taxonomies and the Bulgarian PES to

accelerate the development of national methodologies for defining green jobs and skills.

Labour shortages

Piloting a common approach to measuring labour shortages: Throughout 2023-2025,

a Focus Group was set up to pilot and test a common approach to measuring labour

shortages, exploring the use of the ratio between job vacancies and registered job seekers

as a possible common approach among PES Network members. This approach is already

used by most of the PES consulted, though with large variations in the nature of data and

the methodology.

Digitalisation

Sharing digital tools: The 2025 PES Work Programme provided for the piloting of an

open-source digital platform where PES could exchange expertise, pool resources and

tools, and share reusable components of IT solutions in a secure manner. In December

2025, a dedicated space for sharing and engaging around IT assets was launched.

Table 2. Enhanced cooperation between PES as a result of PES Decision

Impact Example

Identifying joint

solutions to common

labour market

challenges

The Slovenian and Austrian PES established cooperation on posted workers sent from

Slovenia to Austria. Their engagement in the PES Network was mentioned as crucial for

the two organisations to cooperate on this topic.

Improving service

delivery

The Croatian PES worked closely with the Slovenian and Lithuanian PES to develop its

employer strategy, which also led to assigning several counsellors to work exclusively

with employers. In exchange, the Slovenian PES learnt from the Croatian regarding the

development of statistical profiling.

175 The examples in this section were identified in the context of the external evaluation. They are intended to show selected

examples of potential effects associated with participation in PES Network activities. They should not be regarded as

exhaustive, nor as representing the most significant type of impact in any given country. Further examples are provided

in the evaluation study.

121

Through their collaboration, the Austrian PES supported the German PES to introduce

the EFQM model as one of their organisational management principles.

After attending PES Network events showcasing France’s experience with AI - the

Bulgarian PES decided not only to adopt the best practices presented, but also to further

enhance them by developing advanced functionalities for both job seekers and employers

(see Study Annex 4).

Making use of funding

support through EU

funding programmes

Interviewed representatives from EU institutions noted that participation in the PES

Network has enabled PES to work on joint proposals to access EU funding, particularly

within social and innovation programmes such as ESF+, to implement projects based on

knowledge gained through mutual learning activities organised by the PES Network.

Table 3. Impact of Benchlearning on digitalisation, performance and employer management

Area Benchlearning recommendation/ Trigger Follow-up action and result

Digitalisation

Benchlearning recommended the Belgian PES

(Actiris) to advance digital transformation, especially

in data and digital services

A follow-up MAP helped Actiris develop PIX, a

digital skills assessment tool; MAP remains a

reference point for new digital service actions

Performance

management

Several Benchlearning assessments underscored the

need for the Cypriot PES for a performance

management system

Developed a PES-wide performance

management system, including scorecards and

KPIs for all District and Local Offices

Benchlearning outputs and peer-review feedback

helped the Spanish PES identify areas to strengthen

evaluation culture

Benchlearning outputs and peer-review feedback

served as a reference for the design of Spain’s

national PES evaluation framework and for

the organisation of regional peer reviews within

the National Employment System

Cooperation

with employers

Recommendation to the Estonian PES to strengthen

cooperation with employers

Revised the national employer strategy to

improve employer outreach and engagement

Benchlearning highlighted the need for the Greek

PES to improve matching, profiling, employer

engagement, and use of data.

Engaged in a MAP to strengthen the client-

employer matching system and improve client

profiling, client referrals, use of technology and

overall monitoring.

Table 4. Examples of the uptake of good practices by type of PES Network activity

Type of

activity

Overview of

activity

Key strengths

identified

Examples of uptake

of good practices

Thematic

Review

Workshops

(TRW)

1.5 days, hosted by PES

Network members with

around 30 participants.

Content is practical and

focused on in depth-learning

on specific topics

Small group discussions provide

opportunities for deeper

engagement and peer learning.

Lead to the development of

Thematic Papers,

which crystallise shared

knowledge and make it

accessible over time

TRW on labour market skills

intelligence: supported the Slovenian

PES introduce medium- and long-term

forecasts of labour market needs, and

better plan more targeted interventions to

address skills gaps and labour shortages

Additional examples in Study Annex 7,

1b-A.

122

Working

groups (WG)

Typically, 3 meetings per

WG hosted and chaired by

one PES, with up to 15

participants.

9 WGs established during

2021-2025

Allow participating PES to

access a diverse array of case

studies and lessons learned

Regular meetings increase

PES expertise in a specific topic

over time and deepen

relationships between PES

Insights from external experts

provide PES with

new expertise on tried and tested

approaches

WG on Evidence-based design: provided

the Danish PES, which chaired the WG,

with inputs on how to improve the

governance and organisational set-up of

evidence-based work, and increased

awareness of ways to communicate

results to decision makers and front-line

staff.

WG on Taxonomies: inspired the

Swedish PES to further advance its work

on green skills, by developing a

comprehensive dataset for green

taxonomies (green jobs and skills). The

Bulgarian PES accelerated the

development of national methodologies

for defining green jobs and skills, which

is now a priority in their action plan

Additional examples in Study Annex 7,

1b-B

Mutual

Assistance

Projects

(MAP)

Last up to 18 months, for up

to 3 countries

simultaneously, with around

3 meetings a year

Over the evaluation period,

PES from BE, EL, LT, LV,

LU, PT and RO

received assistance through

MAPs

Provide more tailored support on

specific performance

gaps/management issues99

Strengthen synergies across

different activity strands, as PES

use MAPs to follow up

on Benchlearning recommendati

ons

As implementation depends on

explicit request, participants are

highly committed to learning

MAP on the use of AI-based tools in

matching services: the Luxembourg PES,

used insights gained from the Belgian

(VDAB) and Swedish PES

to identify technical measures and

support needed to update matching tools

to integrate AI solutions.

MAP to strengthen jobseeker-employer

matching system: the Greek PES was

able to learn from experts, including from

the Estonian PES, on counselling and

performance management systems,

including approaches to forecasting, data

infrastructure,

performance monitoring and impact

analysis.

Additional examples in Study Annex 7,

1b-C

Thematic

Learning