Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0256
Offentligt
3028892_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 26.5.2025
SWD(2025) 128 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EVALUATION
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
Evaluation of the European Labour Authority (ELA)
{COM(2025) 256 final} - {SEC(2025) 157 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
Table of contents
1.
Introduction ...............................................................................................................2
1.1. Purpose and scope of the evaluation .................................................................. 2
1.2. Evaluation methodology and limitations ............................................................ 2
2.
What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................5
2.1. Description of the intervention and its objectives .............................................. 5
2.2. Points of comparison .......................................................................................... 8
3.
How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ................................12
3.1. Organisation and finances ................................................................................ 12
3.2. Delivering outputs and activities ...................................................................... 19
3.3. External factors influencing the delivery ......................................................... 24
4.
Evaluation findings (analytical part) .....................................................................27
4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................... 27
4.1.1. Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 27
4.1.2. Efficiency ............................................................................................. 38
4.1.3. Coherence ............................................................................................. 47
4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ...................... 52
4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? ...................................................................... 55
5.
What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ....................................................60
5.1. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 60
5.2. Lessons learned ................................................................................................ 64
Annex I.
Annex II.
Annex III.
Annex IV.
Annex V.
Annex VI.
Procedural Information ...........................................................................67
Methodology and Analytical Models used ..............................................76
Evaluation Matrix .....................................................................................86
Overview of Benefits and Costs .............................................................112
Stakeholders Consultation - Synopsis Report ......................................127
ELA Intervention Logic .........................................................................141
Annex VII. The Set-up Process of ELA ....................................................................144
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0003.png
Glossary
Term or acronym
DG EMPL
CJI
EC
ECG
ECO
EURES
ELA
ETF
FRA
ILO
IMI
KPI
NCO
NLO
PES
SNE
SOLVIT
Meaning or definition
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion
Concerted and Joint Inspection
European Commission
EURES Coordination Group
EURES European Coordination Office
European network of employment services
European Labour Authority
European Training Foundation
Fundamental Rights Agency
International Labour Organization
Internal Market Information System
Key Performance Indicators
National Coordination Office (EURES)
National Liaison Officer (ELA)
Public Employment Service
Seconded National Expert
EU-wide network of centres, which are part of the Member
States’ national administration, that helps citizens and businesses
resolve issues related to the application of EU law
https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm)
Single Programming Document – Document including a multi-
annual programming (3 years) and the annual work programme.
Third Country National
SPD
TCN
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0004.png
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
1.1.
Purpose and scope of the evaluation
Purpose
In line with Article 40 of the Regulation establishing a European Labour Authority
1
, this
document evaluates the European Labour Authority (ELA), a new decentralised agency
whose Founding Regulation was adopted on 20 June 2019. ELA is one of the five
decentralised agencies that fall under the remit of the Commission’s Directorate General
for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL).
2
As a new agency in its ‘start up
phase’ ELA has been evaluated separately from the remaining four well-established EMPL
Agencies.
3
This is the first evaluation of ELA. The Founding Regulation provides for
subsequent evaluations every five years.
In line with the Commission's better regulation guidelines
4
, the present evaluation
provides, to the extent possible, considering ELA’s early stage of development and the
absence of a comprehensive monitoring system, an analysis of the effectiveness,
efficiency, relevance, coherence, and added value of the agency. It furthermore takes first
steps in assessing the agency's performance in relation to its mandate, specific objectives
and activities, as set out in Article 40 of the Founding Regulation. While this evaluation
may in several respects have more the character of a progress report, it aims to contribute
to a better evidence base for the next evaluation.
Scope of the evaluation
The evaluation covers the period from the adoption of the ELA Regulation in 2019 up to
the second quarter of 2023
5
and the entirety of the agency’s work. The evaluation covers
the 27 Member States as well as EEA countries, in so far as ELA includes these countries
in its work.
1.2.
Evaluation methodology and limitations
Methodology
6
The evaluation was supported by an external study (hereafter ‘supporting study’). The
study used a variety of primary and secondary data/sources and combined qualitative and
1
2
3
4
5
6
Regulation - 2019/1149 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
The other four agencies are Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA.
The Commission grouped agencies in three categories depending on the degree of maturity and stability
of their tasks in the Communication on Programming of human and financial resources for decentralised
agencies 2014-2020 (COM (2013) 519 FINAL. For more info on the evaluation of four EMPL Agencies,
see.https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13400-EU-agencies-
Eurofound-Cedefop-ETF-and-EU-OSHA-2024-evaluation_en
Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox (europa.eu).
The supporting study covers developments including Q2 2023. However, where figures for the complete
year 2023 are available, these have been used.
See also Annex II.
2
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0005.png
quantitative research tools to collect a wide range of evidence and support as robust an
analysis as possible. The supporting study was built on an evaluation matrix.
7
ELA’s management and monitoring documents were reviewed together with other studies
and reports related to the Authority. The supporting study included extensive consultation
work. It also included four case studies
8
. In-depth interviews were conducted with persons
and organisations collaborating with and benefiting from ELA’s work as well as members
of the governance structure. Targeted online surveys were conducted with key stakeholders
and agency staff.
9
The study also made use of the European Commission 12-week public
consultation on the Europa website Have Your Say
10
that collected feedback from the
general public.
The assessment of ELA’s efficiency combined the quantitative information available and
appended this with more qualitative information from desk research and stakeholders
perceptions, given the limitations of available data.
11
As regards costs, the report builds the
analysis on the ELA budget and qualitatively discusses the costs for stakeholders outside
ELA’s budget based on stakeholders’ feedback. Two workshops were organised: one
towards the end of the stakeholder consultation to get an in-depth understanding of the
views of social partners and a validation workshop at the very end of the supporting study,
to confirm the conclusions of the study with key stakeholders.
12
For a fuller description of
the methodology see Annex II.
Limitations
13
During the evaluation process, it became clear that the evaluation matrix had limitations
due to the absence of an adequate ELA monitoring system with key performance indicators
(KPI), targets, and SMART objectives
14
. ELA also did not maintain all the indicators of the
previously established monitoring of the EURES’
15
performance, nor did it set up a
strategic management system for the overall performance. Not all originally envisaged
indicators were finally available, and the indicators introduced in 2021 or 2022 were
output-oriented, thus providing no insights into results. At the same time, process-related
aspects gained importance, which were not captured with the evaluation matrix. Therefore,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Annex II and Annex III and Supporting Study.
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case Studies (Information and awareness raising in road transport,
Coordination office of EURES, ELA’s support in concerted and joint inspections, Mediation task of
ELA).
Annex V.
For a detailed presentation of the consultation activities see Annex V and Supporting Study, Annex VI.
Annex II and Supporting Study, Annex V.
Supporting Study, Annex VI.
Annex II, section 7 (Limitations and robustness of findings).
New key performance indicators were defined by ELA in the Single Programming Document 2023-
2025.The first steps in setting up an internal management and control system and linked to it a system
of performance indicators had not yet produced relevant information in summer 2023. ELA (2023),
Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 52, ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report
2023, p. 9/10 and 52/53 and Supporting Study, p. 96.
However, the evaluation was able to retrieve some data based on the EURES Performance Measurement
System, for the matching process for the years 2021-2022.
3
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
this report, while aiming to respond to the evaluation questions, includes indicators and
reasoning not identified in the evaluation matrix and could not in all instances cover
indicators which were identified in the evaluation matrix. This partially restricted the
assessment of performance and achievement of objectives.
To mitigate the absence of result-oriented indicators, the evaluation collected evidence by
analysing ELA’s internal activity reports, data on the staff and budgetary situation of the
agency and its development over the evaluation period. It also used reports from the
European Court of Auditors and output indicators (e.g. number of meetings etc.).
Stakeholder feedback filled most of the information gaps. However, reliance on
stakeholders’ input and views may lead to potential bias and influence robustness of the
evidence and subsequent findings. Also, as understanding some of ELA’s tasks requires a
good knowledge of the relevant acquis and processes (e.g. on posting, coordination of
social security, tackling undeclared work), only a limited number of informed experts and
stakeholders could be expected to provide in-depth feedback.
Despite efforts to reach out widely to stakeholders through the various surveys in the
supporting study, some biases cannot be excluded as (i) stakeholders in different areas of
ELA’s activities might have been mobilised to different degrees and (ii) persons who are
less supportive might have been less inclined to respond than others.
Stakeholders, and notably staff, may have (some) vested interests considering the role of
ELA. This has been considered when using their input. However, stakeholders and staff
are also experts, with a good knowledge of ELA features and a high interest in obtaining
or providing a good service. As such, their views are relevant and valuable. To best use
this resource, the evaluation examined if specific groups of stakeholders may have
impacted the outcomes of the surveys, e.g. by having particularly strong opinions. Care
was taken to use the stakeholders’ and staff feedback in a targeted way (e.g. staff feedback
is important in assessing internal organisation). Finally, feedback received from different
surveys and interviews has been compared and checked for coherence with the overall
picture (e.g. number and type of activities organised by ELA) and to the extent possible
with written evidence.
As a newly established agency, ELA’s structure and operations evolved significantly
during the evaluation period. This limited assessment of its performance and efficiency as
even by mid-2023 some activities just had started and results were not yet visible.
Finally, it was in most cases not possible to identify impacts at country level arising from
ELA’s actions. This was due to ELA’s recent establishment, its limited size, and a
monitoring system that was not fully developed, not to mention that such effects will,
considering the complexity of the area, be difficult to estimate even under much better
conditions.
4
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0007.png
2.
W
HAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION
?
2.1.
Description of the intervention and its objectives
Against the backdrop of increasing labour mobility and continuous reporting on problems
for workers in cross-border situations, Commission President Juncker announced in his
2017 State of the Union speech the setting up of a European Labour Authority. The general
objective of the Authority is to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the Union
and to assist Member States and the Commission in their effective application and
enforcement of Union law related to labour mobility across the Union and the coordination
of social security systems (Founding Regulation, Article 2). In spite of an increasing
legislative acquis, labour mobility was often perceived as coming with the risk of social
dumping, brain drain or insufficient protection of the rights of mobile workers and citizens.
Therefore, the Commission identified six key drivers,
16
motivating the set-up of ELA:
•
Inadequate support and guidance for individuals and businesses in cross-border
situations, including incomplete or sparse information available to the public
concerning their rights and obligations,
Insufficient access to and sharing of information between national authorities
responsible for different domains of labour mobility and social security
coordination
Insufficient capacity of competent national authorities to organise cooperation with
authorities across borders
Weak or absent mechanisms for joint cross-border enforcement activities
Lack of a cross-border mediation mechanism between Member States across all
domains of labour mobility and social security coordination
Insufficient cooperation set-up at EU level
•
•
•
•
•
In addressing these drivers the intervention also responds to the Sustainable Development
Goal 8, decent work and economic growth, as it allows mobile workers to benefit from fair
working conditions. Fair working conditions for mobile workers, help to make labour
mobility a good choice and thereby to contribute to higher productivity of the workforce.
Positive knock-on effects on other sustainable development goals such as ensuring peace,
justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) can also be expected to occur from better
enforcement of legislation across borders or the better mutual understanding between
national authorities.
ELA’s activities contribute to a situation where intra-EU cross-border labour mobility
works for employers and employees as well as public authorities in both origin and
destination countries. This contributes to a more efficient allocation of labour, thereby
facilitating European economic growth and enhancing competitiveness.
16
SWD(2018)68 final (Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority), p. 9-20.
5
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0008.png
In addition, these activities contribute to protecting the rights of mobile workers by
supporting inspections and providing mobile workers with adequate and more easily
accessible information on their rights.
Ensuring transparency in national labour markets and addressing the social concerns of
both local and mobile workers are essential preconditions for citizens in origin and
destination countries to recognise the benefits of labour mobility and acknowledge it as
fair.
From the start ELA was conceived as a hub, bringing together, coordinating, and ensuring
a smooth flow of information between the relevant stakeholders, notably various national
authorities and facilitating their cooperation. In all areas ELA has to rely on constructive
cooperation with players at the national level. Provided the commitment of Member States
to free movement, this was considered as the missing link to ensure fair labour mobility.
ELA’s aim is to improve the availability, quality and accessibility of information regarding
rights and obligations in relation to labour mobility and supports EU Member States’
authorities in providing services to individuals and employers through EURES.
The scope of ELA’s activities is set by EU legislation on free movement of workers,
including explicitly social security coordination and posting and social aspects of
international road transport.
The drivers which led to the idea to establish ELA, have developed into the objectives and
tasks identified in the Founding Regulation. The establishment of ELA can be understood
as (i) a service to Member States assisting them in better cooperation and coordination and
as (ii) a means to help jobseekers, workers and companies by providing more transparency
about employment opportunities in other Member States.
17
The Regulation sets four specific objectives
18
:
1) Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations regarding labour
mobility across the Union as well as relevant to services.
2) Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of
relevant Union law across the Union and including facilitating concerted and joint
inspections.
3) Mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross-border disputes between
Member States.
4) Support cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work.
These specific objectives are then further detailed into operational objectives or tasks. The
Regulation provides for seven tasks to be performed by ELA. These tasks correspond to
17
18
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149.
Article 2 does not explicitly use the term ‘specific’. This is the terminology introduced in the intervention
logic (Annex VI) and is used throughout this document.
6
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0009.png
the eight operational objectives identified in the intervention logic aiming to address the
problem drivers identified above
19
:
a) Facilitate access to information regarding rights and obligations concerning labour
mobility for individuals, employers and social partner organisations.
b) Manage and coordinate the European Coordination Office of EURES.
c) Facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information between Member States
with a view to the consistent, efficient and effective application and enforcement
of relevant Union law.
d) Coordinate and support concerted and joint inspections.
e) Carry out analyses and risk assessment on issues of cross-border labour mobility
(including social security coordination).
f) Support Member States with capacity building regarding the effective application
and enforcement of relevant Union law.
g) Support Member States in tackling undeclared work.
h) Mediate disputes between Member States on the application of relevant Union law.
The table below provides an overview of the main ELA tasks and the relevant activities
associated to those tasks.
Figure 1: Key activities per ELA task
ELA tasks(operational objectives)
Task 1a: Information and Services
Task 1b: Coordination of EURES
Key activities
Translations; Working Groups on Information; Information support
services; Sectoral Workshops
Coordination and network governance; Preparation of the ECO work
programme; Drafting the annual performance measurement system
report; Managing the EURES portal; Provide training session for the
staff in the EURES Network; European (Online) Job Days;
Communication
Establishing and managing the cooperation and information
exchange framework between national authorities; Promoting
enhanced cross-border cooperation; Promoting the use of electronic
tools and procedures for cross-border cooperation; Reporting
activities
Coordination of and support for inspections and facilitating proper
follow-up; Proposals to Member States to carry out CJI’s; Working
Group on Inspection; Learning and Training; Information
campaigns; Strategic partnerships; Monitoring and reporting
Conducting analytical activities, including mappings, analyses and
reports; Mapping of Member State’ tools and approaches to risk
assessment; Integrating labour mobility analyses and risk assessment
Organisation of specific training sessions; Collection of good
practices and organisation of relevant events; Mutual learning;
Promotion of capacity building activities
Task 2: Cooperation and exchange of
information
Task 3: Concerted and joint inspections
Task 4: Analysis and Risk Assessment
Task 5: Capacity building
19
In the Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 tasks 1 and 2 are put together. See intervention logic in Annex VI.
7
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0010.png
ELA tasks(operational objectives)
Task 6: Tackling undeclared work
Key activities
Organisation and management of the meetings of the Platform
tackling undeclared work; Mutual learning activities; Helping
research new areas and build the knowledge base of the Platform;
Communication and information activities
Mediate disputes between Member States; Information and
communication activities; Training and knowledge sharing
activities; Monitoring and reporting activities
Task 7: Mediation
Source: ELA Annual activity report 2022
Preferably, an operational objective is designed to support a single specific objective,
whereas a specific objective can well be achieved by more than one strands of action
(operational objectives). For the detailed intervention logic see Annex VI of this report.
The intervention logic and its hierarchy of objectives constitutes an important tool for
steering the process and developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation. The external
factors which impacted on ELA’s activities are discussed in Section 3.2 (2).
A key feature of ELA’s area of competence is that important parts are covered by
Directives. This means that EU law is implemented via national legislation and different
national institutional set-ups add a layer of complexity when coordinating national
regimes.
2.2.
Points of comparison
The preferred option, as presented in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal to
set up ELA, foresaw ELA to provide ‘support
to information and services to citizens and
employers, cooperation, joint inspections, analysis and risk assessment, information
exchange, and capacity building, while facilitating the adoption of decisions as regards
conciliation mechanisms and cooperation in case of cross-border labour disruptions’.
20
Except for the support to cooperation in case of cross-border labour disruptions, these tasks
have been included in the adopted Regulation. To achieve this, ELA was foreseen to take
over seven existing functions/bodies, namely: (i) the EURES European Coordination
Office, (ii) the Conciliation Board from the Administrative Commission (AC) on the
Coordination of Social Security Systems, the (iii) Audit Board and the (iv) Technical
Commission of the AC, (v) the European Platform to tackle Undeclared Work, (vi) the
Expert committee on the Posting of Workers; and (vii) the Technical Committee on the
Free Movement of Workers. Incorporation of those bodies was expected to simplify the
institutional landscape and to carry out functions in a more integrated way.
21
Except for the
three bodies linked to the Administrative Commission (the Conciliation Board, the Audit
Board and the Technical Commission), ELA took over all of these bodies.
22
20
21
22
European Commission, SWD(2018)68 final, Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a
Regulation of the EP and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority, p.59.
SWD(2018)68 final, p. 50.
SWD(2018)68 final, p. 47.
8
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0011.png
In terms of effects, the impact assessment expected that the Authority would improve the
provision of labour mobility analysis, by pooling relevant sources. Thanks to specialised
and dedicated staff it would be in a good position to support joint inspections. The Platform
Tackling Undeclared Work combined with National Liaison Officers would constitute a
coordination mechanism for bilateral and multilateral information exchanges. The support
provided by ELA would allow addressing problematic phenomena such as e.g. letterbox
companies in an integrated manner.
The coordination of EURES was expected to have synergies with similar activities carried
out by bodies integrated into ELA.
23
Joint capacity building and training measures could
be initiated and outreach activities to workers and employers could be expanded to cover
a broader range of topics and/or a wider audience.
The absorption of the Conciliation Board was expected to extend the conciliation function
to other areas than social security coordination alone, whereas the Audit Board and
Technical Commission were planned to be integrated by ELA on the grounds of the
technical nature of their tasks.
24
ELA was expected to feed into discussions within the
Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, the Advisory
Committee on the Free Movement of Workers and the Committee on Road Transport by
presenting the findings of reports it had prepared with relevance to the scope of those
committees. The advisory committees would continue their work as they did before the
establishment of ELA and the Committee on Road Transport would continue its activities
as part of the EU comitology structure.
25
The highly qualitative approach of the impact assessment in assessing the problems, effects
and impacts was linked to the difficulties of establishing causal links between the
envisaged new body and socio-economic impacts in an area of fairly complex rule-setting
and enforcement.
26
As a consequence several points of comparison rely heavily on the input
and feedback from stakeholders
27
(Figure 2). To assess the success towards removing
obstacles to fair labour mobility would need to rely on a comprehensiveose existing
obstacles . Such inventory, which is particulary complex to establish, was not undertaken
at the stage of the impact assessment, nor later on by ELA.
Considering the changes between what was foreseen as part of the preferred option in the
impact assessment and the finally adopted Regulation, the points of comparison presented
in Figure 1 refer only to those areas included in the adopted Regulation.
23
24
25
26
27
E.g. with the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work as a forum for the exchange of information and best
practices and for engaging in cross-border cooperation and joint activities. SWD (2018)68 final p. 102.
Respectively overviewing and facilitating cross-border payments settlement of reimbursement claims
between social security institutions, and providing a forum to discuss technical aspects of the IT tools
used in social security coordination, notably for the exchange of information (i.e. EESSI).
SWD (2018)68 final p. 52/53.
SWD(2018)68, p. 31.
For limitations see section 1.2 above.
9
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0012.png
Figure 2: Points of comparison
Specific Objective of
the intervention
Facilitate
access
to
information on rights and
obligations
regarding
labour mobility across
the Union as well as to
relevant services
Operational Objectives
OO1. Improve the availability, quality and accessibility of information
offered to individuals, employers and social partner organisations regarding
rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility across the EU
OO2. Manage the European Coordination Office of EURES to support
Member States in providing services to individuals and employers
Point of comparison (situation prior to 2019)
Insufficient access to information and transparency on cross-border mobility rules was
considered a problem both for individuals and for businesses.
E.g. in road transport, 53% of the respondents to a public consultation carried out in
2017 considered that EU guidance on explaining relevant EU legislation in this field was
not, or only partially, useful. This is especially problematic in view of the different
interpretation of EU road transport legislation.
For EURES, in 2019, 13 NCOs estimated that more than 75% of the available job
vacancies were transferred to EURES, the total number of jobseekers on the EURES
portal were 672 116 in 2019, with 413 036 registered via self-service.
28
National competent authorities lack the specialised knowledge and access to information
to deal effectively with cross-border cases, this requires continuous exchange.
Authorities are not able to verify the validity of documents issued by another Member
State in real time (thus making inspections less effective).
Authorities refrain from asking for information from another Member State about e.g.
actual wage payments or wages to be paid in the case of posting.
National authorities are not sufficiently aware how their performance compares with
national authorities in other countries, and they have no easy access to discuss and to
advise for organisational improvement.
Facilitate and enhance
cooperation
between
Member States in the
enforcement of relevant
Union law across the
Union,
including
facilitating concerted and
joint inspections
Support
cooperation
between Member States
in tackling undeclared
work.
OO3. Facilitate the cooperation and acceleration of exchange of information
between Member States and support their effective compliance with
cooperation obligations, including on information exchange.
OO4. Coordinate and support (at the request of one or more Member States,
or by suggesting to the authorities of the Member States concerned)
concerted or joint inspections in the areas within the Authority’s
competence.
OO5. Assess risks and carry out analyses regarding labour mobility and
social security coordination across the EU
OO6. Support Member States with capacity building aimed at promoting the
consistent enforcement of EU law related to labour mobility across the EU
OO7. Tackle undeclared work and encourage cooperation between Member
States through the European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling
undeclared work
The European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work was established in 2016, with the
purpose of enhancing cooperation between Member States in fighting undeclared work.
Nonetheless, the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the establishment of
ELA found multiple barriers, such as the lack of cooperation and enforcement
mechanisms, the volatility of political investment in cooperation, as well as technical
barriers to the exchange of information (e.g. differing legal competences between the
contracting authorities, languages, and data collection methods).
28
European Commission (2021),
Study supporting the ex-post EURES evaluation
and the second biennial EURES report, p. 31.
10
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0013.png
Mediate and facilitate a
OO8. Facilitate a solution in the case of a dispute between two or more
solution in cases of cross-
Member States regarding individual cases of application of EU law in areas
border disputes between
covered by the Regulation
Member States
Note: See Supporting Study (p. 14/15).
At EU level, a conciliation mechanism exists only in the social security coordination
area. The dialogue and conciliation procedure aims at differing interpretations arising
from the provisions of the Coordination Regulations. Decisions are not binding and some
follow-up may be agreed upon.
11
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0014.png
3.
H
OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION
PERIOD
?
3.1.
Organisation and finances
As from end of 2023, ELA has 144 members of staff.
29
60 of those are Seconded National
Experts (SNEs) of which 27 work as National Liaison Officers (NLOs), a function
explicitly identified in the Founding Regulation. ELA is organised in
3 thematic units
(see
Figure 3): cooperation support (46 members of staff – including the NLOs), enforcement
and analysis (29), and information and EURES (22) and
2 horizontal units:
resources
(21), and governance and coordination (23). Within the units, staff is attributed to specific
teams. Staff numbers have progressively grown over the evaluation period (see Figure 3
below).
Figure 3: Development of ELA Staff
30
Source: supporting study, Annex V, p. 7 (and main document)
ELA’s
governance
is structured around a Management Board comprised by
representatives from each Member State, two Commission delegates, one independent
expert appointed by the European Parliament and four delegates from social partners. Only
the 27 representatives of the Member States and the 2 Commission delegates have voting
rights. The 5 further members of the Management Board have no voting rights.
31
Including
29
30
31
ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2023, p. 57, Table IV. Difference with Figure 2 due
to two open vacancies.
TA: temporary agent. AD: Administrator, AST: Assistant, CA: Contractual Agent, SNE: Seconded
national expert.
Management Board | European Labour Authority (europa.eu)
The composition of the Management
Board is as follows: one member from each Member State with voting right (with alternate), 2 members
12
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0015.png
observers and the Executive Director of ELA, 43 persons are expected to participate in
Management Board meetings. This structure is complemented by a stakeholder group
which is chaired by ELA’s Executive Director and composed of 5 representatives from
trade unions, 5 representatives from employer organisations and 2 representatives from the
European Commission, i.e. 13 persons altogether. The stakeholder group was set up to give
social partners the possibility to exchange with the Executive Director and to advise ELA
in all areas of its activity. While still involving many persons, ELA’s governance structure
is less voluminous than those of tripartite agencies such as Eurofound or EU-OSHA, where
next to representatives from national administrations also social partners from all Member
States have their representatives in the Management Board.
Different from other agencies such as Eurofound or EU-OSHA, an Executive Board is not
mentioned in the Founding Regulation. Similarly other smaller, but official settings, such
as Advisory Committees or Advisory Groups do not exist and are not foreseen in the
Founding Regulation.
32
The Authority may set up working groups or expert panels comprising representatives from
Member States, the Commission or external experts for the fulfilment of its tasks.
33
ELA
has set up the European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work as a permanent working
group and has established 3 further working groups: on information, on inspection and on
mediation. The working groups set up by ELA comprise representatives from all Member
States and representatives from EEA countries, social partners, external experts, delegates
from other agencies.
The decision to locate ELA in Bratislava was taken after the adoption of the Regulation in
June 2019.
34
ELA has achieved a fair level of visibility at the European level. Asking citizens whether
they have heard of ELA, 13% of respondents indicated having heard of ELA. This is less
32
33
34
from the European Commission with voting right (with alternates), one independent expert appointed
by the European Parliament (no voting right, no alternate), 2 representatives from European Trade
Unions, no voting right (with alternates), 2 representatives from European Employer Organisations, no
voting rights (with alternates), 4 observers from EFTA countries (CH, NO, IS, LI – not alternates), 4
observers from other EU agencies (no alternates), the Executive Director of ELA taking part in the
deliberations without voting right. That adds up to 43 persons. The Chairperson of the Management
Board is elected from among the Members with voting rights.
Regulation (EU) 2019/127 establishing the European Foundation for the improvement of living and
working conditions (Eurofound), and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 Article 10 and
12 (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/127/oj) and Regulation (EU) 2019/126 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing the European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work (EU-OSHA), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94, Article 10
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/126/oj
and Advisory Groups – not mentioned in the Regulation but
established to provide EU-OSHA with strategic guidance and feedback.
https://osha.europa.eu/en/about-
eu-osha/governance-eu-osha/composition-advisory-groups
Regulation - 2019/1149 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu),
Article 16. Article 16 (2) does not prescribe the
composition of working groups.
https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/member-states-decide-new-ela-seat
13
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0016.png
than for the European Health Insurance Card (46%), but more than for EURES or the
EURES website (9%).
35
Figure 4: ELA organigramme
To facilitate the analysis, ELA’s activities have been linked to operational objectives and
operational objectives have been linked to a single specific objective (see Figure 5). Figure
5 also includes an overview on how many staff and how much financial resources were (in
2023) allocated to these activities
36
. In earlier years the allocation of the budget was not yet
sufficiently stable (parts of the activities were still included in the Commission budget or
not yet taking place).
37
35
36
37
Eurobarometer 528 (December 2022): Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic, Summary, p. 32.
Familiarity ranges from less than 10% in Spain, France, Cyprus and Latvia up to 20% and more in
Germany, Estonia and the Netherlands (Intra-EU
labour mobility after the pandemic - December 2022
- - Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu)).
This distribution is foreseen to remain stable for 2024 and 2025.
See e.g. Figure 4 and Annex IV.
14
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
Figure 5 shows that two of the specific objectives of ELA, namely, to facilitate access to
information and rights (including EURES) and to facilitate cooperation between Member
States, absorbed more than 2/3 of human and financial resources. The next most significant
area represented the horizontal activities, which arrived at 28.5% of staff and 14.4% of
financial resources. Only around 2% of the resources were dedicated to the mediation role
and 3.5% to 4.1% were used to support the activities on the fight against undeclared work.
15
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0018.png
Figure 5: Overview of the links between
ELA’s
specific objectives, operational objectives and activities with budgetary and human resources
(2023)
38
Specific Objective
Facilitate access to
information on rights and
obligations with regard to
labour mobility across the
Union and relevant services
Operational Objectives
Facilitate access to information regarding
rights and obligations concerning labour
mobility for individuals, employers and
social partner organisations
Manage and coordinate the European
Coordination office of EURES
Activity
Communication / Awareness raising
Campaigns
Information and Services
EURES
Staff
5
11
11
27
(18.8%)
Budget
39
1,710,117
3,150,684
11,756,213
16,617,014
(42%)
5,577,017
Facilitate and enhance
cooperation between
Member States in enforcing
relevant Union law, such as
facilitating concerted and
joint inspections
Facilitate the cooperation and acceleration
of exchange of information between
Member States and supporting their
effective compliance with cooperation
obligations, including on information
exchange
Coordinate and support concerted and joint
inspections
Carry out analyses and risk assessment on
issues of cross-border labour mobility
Cooperation and NLOs office
35
Social partners liaison
1
422,817
Logistic and technical support to CJIs
Analysis & risk assessment
Capacity building
14
9
8
3,259,544
2,310,561
2,981,117
38
39
See Annex VI (Intervention Logic, for the links between activities, operational and specific objectives) and ELA (2023), Single Programming Document 2023-2025, p. 61 as well as
Supporting Study, Annex III, Figures 5 and 6 (for the staff and budgetary figures). - Communication and awareness raising campaigns in Single Programming Document 2023-2025
are considered a horizontal activity.
Budget includes staff costs.
16
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0019.png
Support Member States with capacity
building regarding the effective application
and enforcement of relevant Union law
Facilitation of digital tools
1
68
(47.2%)
398,058
14,949,114
(37.8%)
Mediate and facilitate a
solution in cases of cross-
border disputes between
Member States
Mediate disputes between Member States
on the application of relevant Union law
Mediation
3
3
(2.1%)
693,168
693,168
(1.8%)
1,602,979
1,602,979
(4.1%)
1,455,502
531,278
1,062,556
1,062,556
664,097
929,736
5,705,725
(14.4%)
Support cooperation
between Member States in
tackling undeclared work
Support Member
undeclared work
States
in
tackling
Tackling undeclared work
5
5
(3.5%)
Governance & policy coordination
Compliance & Internal Control
Activities not linked to a
specific objective
Financial Resources
Human Resources
ICT and facilities
Management and support
8
6
8
7
5
7
41
(28.5%)
17
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0020.png
With an overall budget of EUR 49.5 million in 2024, the built-up phase of ELA has come
to an end. ELA’s budget so far comes exclusively from the general budget of the Union.
Further resources such as project related support are considered possible in the longer term.
Key budget items are Information and EURES (i.e. activities 1 and 2: about 7.5 million
euro), Cooperation and NLOs (7 million euro), horizontal activities, governance and
management without communication (7 million euro) and concerted and joint inspections
(CJIs – 5 million euro). Capacity building; Labour Mobility Analysis/Risk Assessments;
and Communication Campaigns counted for EUR 3 million each. From its very start in
2019 until the end of 2023 ELA had committed a budget of 112 million euro, ELA’s
payments amounted to around 73.5 million euro. By the end of 2023, outstanding payments
were of around 39 million euro. 11.5 million euro was decommitted over the period up to
the end of 2023.
Figure 6: Resources allocated per activity
40
40
ELA (2022), Single Programming Document 2023-2025, p. 61 - the table provides the budget allocated,
i.e. foreseen for the different activities.
18
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0021.png
Earlier budgets did not follow the same structure and where much lower. The overall budget in 2019 was EUR 2.12
million, 2020: EUR 12.58, 2021: 22.38 million (EUR 9.28 million for Information and EURES). See Supporting Study,
‘Full results of the cost-effectiveness analysis’
Prior to ELA becoming financially autonomous in May 2021, the Commission was
responsible for its initial operations. Overall, the absorption rate of the budget (committed
amount divided by the budget) is higher than 95% in all years except for 2019. However,
the share of payment appropriations was quite low: until 2022, less than a quarter of all the
committed amounts had been paid in a given year. In 2022 the payment implementation
rate was 59%
41
and in 2023 it was 74%.
3.2.
Delivering outputs and activities
In the respective consolidated activity reports the Management Board confirmed that ELA
has delivered on its annual work programmes. The activities are further presented in Annex
VIII. This section provides an overview of the outputs and activities (as far as available)
for each of the four specific objectives of the agency.
Under the
first specific objective (‘Facilitate access to information on rights and
obligations regarding labour mobility’),
a significant number of activities took place.
To facilitate
access to information,
ELA organised 3 information campaigns
(#Rights4AllSeasons, #Road2FairTransport, #EU4FairConstruction) and substantially
contributed to a campaign for which preparation had started before ELA was launched
(#EU4FairWork). Furthermore, ELA has set up a translation facility which has translated
from beginning 2020 to end Q2 2023 around 600 documents upon request by national
authorities. The Information Translation Facility is implemented through the Translation
Centre for the Bodies of the European Union and mainly used to translate inspection-
specific documents to facilitate concerted and joint inspections or to support the
accessibility of official national websites.
42
The number of documents translated within a
year had reached a peak in 2021, with slightly lower numbers in 2022 and 2023, indicating
that an original backlog has been resolved.
The use of the
EURES Portal
by employers and jobseekers fluctuated strongly over the
last five years.
43
In 2021, there were close to 63 000 new registrations of jobseekers via
self-service on the EURES Portal, and approximately 680 000 jobseekers’ CVs were
transferred through the single coordinated channel to the EURES Portal. In 2022, the
number of new registrations via self-service decreased to around 14 700, while the number
41
42
43
i.e. payments amounted to 59% of the commitment amounts made in 2022.
ELA (2023), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 32.
Supporting Study, Annex III, section 1.2.1.2.
19
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0022.png
of jobseekers transferred through the single coordinated channel to the EURES Portal
increased to approximately 1.2 million (see Figure 7 below).
44
The decrease in the number of registrations through self-service from 2021 to 2022 can be
partially explained by the fact that during the transition phase the IT-platform required
EURES to use two-factor authentication, whilst the increase in the number of CVs
transferred through the single coordinated channel is linked to the compliance efforts of
the European Commission.
45
,
46
Figure 7: Number of newly registered jobseeker profiles on the EURES Portal*
*Data for 2023 not
yet available
Source: Supporting Study contractor’s elaboration based on EURES annual PMS reports 2021-2022 and Commission
SWD (2021), Ex-post evaluation of the operation and effects of Regulation (EU) 2016/589 on a European network of
employment services (EURES)
Under the
second specific objective (‘Facilitate and enhance cooperation between
Member States in the enforcement of relevant Union law across the Union and
44
45
46
No clear explanation for the significant surge in new registrations emerged as part of this evaluation.
See
SWD(2021)217 final,
p. 35 (Ex-post evaluation of the operation and effects of Regulation (EU)
2016/589 on a European network of employment services (EURES), Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the operation and effects of Regulation (EU)
2016/589 on a European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services
and the further integration of labour markets (submitted pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU)
2016/589)) and Supporting Study, Annex III, section 1.2.1.2
The possibility to opt for single factor authentication instead of the two-factor authentication became
available from 9 October 2023.
Decreasing unemployment rates and an ageing workforce might also contribute to less people
introducing their CVs in such a system, however, they cannot explain such strong change. Nor does
COVID-19, where effects would have taken place from 2019 to 2020. - For an analysis of intra-EU
labour mobility and COVID see: European Commission (2022),
Annual report on Intra-EU labour
mobility 2021.
20
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0023.png
including facilitating concerted and joint inspections’),
activities gradually expanded
during the evaluation period.
The NLOs dealt in 2021 and 2022 with respectively 88 and 110 requests for information
on national systems. Almost all were resolved.
47
The time needed to resolve such requests
was on average around 30 to 40 days. For 2023 the figure went down to 69 requests. This
can be explained by an increasing number of informally resolved queries. Requests have
also changed over time: from initially more simple requests concerning one or two other
Member States towards more questions touching on all or almost all Member States.
ELA’s NLO office organised in 2022 and 2023 events at national level, next to Member
State events supported by ELA and visits of ELA staff in Member States and vice versa.
These events, mostly of up to 50 participants coming from national authorities (often
labour inspectorates), or social partner organisations, covered a broad range of topics: road
transport, platform work, cross-sectoral cooperation in enforcement, posting of workers
and multilateral cooperation of enforcement authorities in several countries.
In 2022, a toolbox for the exchange of information between Member States was prepared,
together with two reports about cooperation practices and challenges between Member
States in specific sectors.
48
Figure 8 shows the increase of
concerted and joint inspections
and participating Member
States over time. In the first semester 2023 ELA supported 36 inspections and by the end
of 2023 26 Member States had participated in such inspections
49
. The inspections focused
on areas of particular importance for cross-border mobility: road transport, construction,
and agriculture. They also targeted specific employment situations, such as long
contractual chains with a high risk of involving letterbox-companies or other fraudulent
forms of labour market intermediation.
Figure 8: Number of cross-border inspections and Member States involved (2019-Q2
2023)
47
48
49
Supporting Study, Annex III, Figure 18.
ELA (2023), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 16, p 23.
Throughout 2023 Luxemburg had not yet participated in CJIs. see: ELA (2024), Annual Report on CJIs
2023, p. 8.
21
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0024.png
Source: Supporting Study. Contractor’s elaboration based on ELA Annual Activity Reports (2019-2022), CJI
Bulletins (2021, 2023) and the Report on CJIs (2022). Data for 2023 refers to Q1 and Q2.
50
– In 2023
altogether 76 cross-border inspections with 26 Member States involved.
Guidance documents for CJIs have been established in 2020.
For
analysis and risk assessments
ELA’s homepage refers to five publications.
51
Three
of these reports were established with the assistance of contractors.
ELA’s
capacity building
activities ranged from the collection of good practices via
trainings and workshops to peer-to-peer learning. In 2022 ELA trained around 300 persons
on CJI related topics, mostly national labour inspectors, but also social partners and ELA’s
NLOs.
52
In support of the implementation of digital tools, ELA started in 2022 a Mutual
Learning and Understanding Framework, IMI-PROVE, focusing in first instance on the
IMI system modules for posting of workers and road transport.
53
The key instrument for
data exchange under social security coordination, the Electronic Exchange of Social
Security Information (EESSI) was not covered by ELAs activities during the evaluation
period.
54
In line with ELA’s mandate to generally encourage the use of digital tools, ELA
organised since 2022 yearly ‘tech conferences’ bringing together national authorities,
industry and academia, showcasing good practices.
55
On the
two remaining specific objectives covering mediation on the one hand and
tackling undeclared work
on the other, the following information could be gathered:
By the end of 2023 four
mediation
cases had reached ELA, ‘one of which had reached a
successful conclusion with the adoption of a non-binding opinion. The remaining three
cases were closed due to the refusal of the other party to participate in the mediation
procedure.
56
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
The total number of inspections for 2023 was 76, with 26 MS involved (Luxemburg did not participate).
https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/publications?f%5B0%5D=oe_publication_activities%3A151
Publications | European Labour Authority (europa.eu)
(30/07/2024)
Construction sector : Issues in information provision, enforcement of labour mobility law, social security
coordination regulations, and cooperation between Member States,
Artificial intelligence and algorithms in risk assessment. A Handbook,
Mapping of national measures taken by the EU and EFTA Member States in employment and social
security for displaced persons coming from Ukraine,
Application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in exchanging data for risk assessment,
and Impact of teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic on the applicable social security.
Supporting Study, p. 61.
ELA_Brochure_A4.pdf
This activity was launched in May 2024:
Digitalisation in social security coordination: enhancing
effectiveness and efficiency – ELA launches the PROGRESS Programme | European Labour Authority
E.g. the 2022 edition:
ELA TECH Conference 2022 - Digital solutions for labour mobility | European
Labour Authority
ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2023, p. 17.
22
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0025.png
The
Platform Tackling Undeclared Work
under ELA continued its operation, providing
a mix of expert input and mutual learning between its members.
The Figure 9 below reflects a number of
available output indicators,
linked to ELA’s
activities focusing mostly on the years 2021/2022, when most of the complete data was
available.
Figure 9:
Outputs of ELA’s activities
Task
Information
and Services
Indicator
Support actions
for specific
sectors
Total number of
documents
translated
ELA campaigns
(reach)
2020
N/A
2021
15 reviews,
3 workshops
231
2022
7 reviews,
2 workshops
183
2023
(Q1&Q2)
8 reviews,
0 workshops
N/A
N/A
#EU4FairW
ork (16
million)
N/A
Coordination
of EURES
Jobseekers
registered via
self-service on the
EURES Portal
Employers
registered on the
EURES Portal
Unique visitors to
the EURES Portal
European Online
Job Days
Job placements
CV’s transferred
via single
coordinated
channel
Requests referred
to facilitate
cooperation
Requests solved
National events
by NLOs
#Rights4AllSea
sons (60 million
views in social
media)
63 000
#Road2FairTranspo
rt (125 million
online impressions)
14 700
#EU4FairConst
ruction (N/A)
N/A
N/A
6 973
5 733
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7M
28
3.4M
44
N/A
12
N/A
N/A
53 200
~ 680 000
48 731
~ 1 200 000
22 348
Cooperation
and exchange
of
information
12
37
107
38
12
N/A
87
N/A
104
8
29
6 confirmed for
the entire year
36
Concerted
and joint
inspections
(CJIs)
Cross-border
inspections (CJIs)
5 (pilots)
10
33
23
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0026.png
Member States
attending CJIs
Infringements
identified
Mutual
learning/training
for CJIs
Number of
experts trained
Analysis and
Risk
Assessment
Capacity
Building
Analytical reports
3
N/A
1
11
N/A
2
25
1 762
9
25
420 (until
June)
3
70
1
80
3
315
4
200
6
Peer-to-peer, staff
exchanges
1 training
4 workshops,
1 staff exchange
Tackling
Undeclared
Work
Mutual learning
formats
N/A
2 Learning
Resource Papers
1 Platform
seminar
1 Thematic
review
workshop
5 Good practice
fiches
2 Peer learning
dialogue
N/A
Mediation
Mediation cases
N/A
2 trainings,
2 workshops,
15 staff exchanges,
2 peer learning
dialogues
3 Learning
Resource Papers
1 Platform seminar
2 Thematic review
workshops
1 Webinar
12 Good practice
fiches
2 Peer learning
dialogue
10 Staff exchanges
3 Output papers
1 case initiated
3 trainings
2 Learning
Resource
Papers
2 cases
initiated
Notes: n/a – not available
Source: Commission own elaboration based on ELA reports, mainly the Consolidated
Annual Activity Reports, EURES Performance Measurement System and inspections
reports
The output identified in Table 9 corresponds to the six key drivers motivating the set-up
of ELA, described in Section 2.1. While the overarching objective of ELA is to contribute
to fair labour mobility across the Union, a direct effect of the identified outputs on this
objective is difficult to measure due to the still limited time of operation of the agency as
well as the diversity of social security systems, employment conditions and industrial
relations between Member States, and the multifaceted nature of these systems. At this
stage the assessment is therefore focused on progress towards the operational and specific
objectives.
3.3.
External factors influencing the delivery
Considering the main developments affecting the EU labour markets and intra EU labour
mobility during the period when ELA was set up, the intervention logic identifies three
24
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0027.png
main types of external factors to be considered when evaluating ELA, presented below.
The impact of these external factors on the performance of the Agency are addressed in
section 4 (see in particular 4.3).
1. Unforeseen crises (e.g. COVID-19 and the Russian war of aggression against
Ukraine)
The
COVID-19 pandemic
impacted in particular the starting up of the agency, with delays
in recruitment of staff, a shift of in-person meetings to online formats and delays in the
organisation of key activities such as the concerted and joint inspections which only started
in September 2021.
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine
disrupted mobility
patterns in the EU, with more than 4 million people arriving from Ukraine and benefitting
from temporary protection in the EU Member States.
2. Socio-economic trends (e.g. digitalisation and changing demography)
Digitalisation
affects labour mobility in various ways: it can contribute to more efficient
exchange of information between Member States
57
, more easily available information
about vacancies and applications including also the use of artificial intelligence for the
matching between vacancies and job searchers, but also lead to more flexible work
patterns, such a cross-border telework creating specific challenges in the application of the
rules on social security coordination. An important step in digitalising information
provision and procedures was taken with the adoption in 2018 of the Regulation on a single
digital gateway
58
. It foresees, among others, the access to EURES through the single ‘Your
Europe’ portal and the digitalisation of procedures for the request and delivery of
entitlement documents for the purpose of social security coordination. Since the latter
requirement had to be implemented by the Member States by the end of 2023, it can be
expected to play a role in the support ELA will be providing on digital tools in the
forthcoming period.
Finally, digitalisation affected and will affect the ways in which ELA carries out its tasks.
Artificial intelligence can be expected to play an increasing role in providing information
more efficiently and in a more targeted way (e.g. EURES), reduce the effort in carrying
out translations and producing assessment and analysis.
Demographic developments
and especially the ageing workforce are resulting in an
outflow of a significant part of the active population from the labour market. This increases
labour shortages to which enhanced labour mobility can be part of the answer
59
.
57
58
59
Such as through the
Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information
system which connects 3400
social security institutions in 32 countries
Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance
and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012
E.g. Communication ‘Demographic change in Europe – a toolbox for action’, COM(2023)577
25
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0028.png
3. Relevant labour mobility and policy developments
Since the inception of ELA and the end of the first semester 2023, the EU labour market
has changed significantly: employment rates have increased
60
, unemployment rates and
differences between unemployment rates decreased
61
. In light of these developments
movers are in the meantime less seen as taking the employment possibilities of local
workers. Instead, they are more seen as causing brain drain and aggravating labour
shortages in the countries from where they leave. As a means to address the substantial
labour shortages in Europe, the attraction of third country nationals to the Union is gaining
increasing attention.
With Brexit intra-EU labour mobility figures declined, as the UK, which used to be a major
destination for EU movers, was no longer part of the Union. However, in the meantime
figures have largely recovered back to pre-Brexit levels.
Changing mobility patterns call for a continuous adaptation of the policy and legislative
framework. The complexity and sensitivity of these adaptations are illustrated by the
negotiations on the revision of the EU legislation on social security coordination which
started in 2016 and could still not be concluded
62
.
To clarify the rules applicable in the cross-border road transport, the Commission adopted
in 2020 the Mobility Package I
63
assigning in some cases explicitly a role to ELA.
60
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsi_emp_a/default/table?lang=en&category=labour.emplo
y.lfsi.lfsi_emp
61
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00203/default/table?lang=en&category=t_labour.t_emp
loy.t_lfsi.t_une
62
Commission proposal:
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16784&langId=en
It should be
noted that the revision of these Regulations would not impact the mandate and tasks of ELA in the field
of social security coordination.
63
Mobility Package I - European Commission (europa.eu)
26
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0029.png
4.
E
VALUATION FINDINGS
(
ANALYTICAL PART
)
4.1.
To what extent was the intervention successful and why?
To assess ELA’s performance this report follows a three step-approach: first (Section
4.1.1.) it looks at how different activities have contributed to the specific objectives
(effectiveness). This part responds to the evaluation questions 1.1 to 1.8. In a second step
the analysis looks into the efficiency of the activities and the functioning of the overall
organisation (Section 4.1.2.). This part provides responses to evaluation questions 1.9 to
1.14. The third step assesses how coherent ELA’s activities are with those of other
organisations and bodies (Section 4.1.3.), thus responding to evaluation questions 1.15 to
1.20.
64
Overall, the intervention has supported cooperation between national authorities in
particular in facilitating inspections of posted and otherwise mobile workers. It organised
events with Member States to raise awareness of ELA’s existence and its areas of activity.
Progress towards its specific objectives can, in the absence of result indicators, only be
approximated indirectly. Altogether, the evaluation points to room for improvement in the
implementation of specific activities and when it comes to the coordination between the
specific activities. Challenges related to staffing, budget management and execution, also
emerged.
4.1.1. Effectiveness
1.
Overall considerations
ELA has delivered to various degrees (details in the following sections) on activities
contributing to its four specific objectives. Differences in the level of delivery can mostly
be attributed to explicit prioritisation which was discussed and approved in the
Management Board and considered necessary during the set-up process. The budget was
allocated according to the planned level of priority. Satisfaction with the output provided
was in general fairly high across the stakeholder groups, indicating a good quality of the
products, still, interviewed national authorities as well as ELA staff underlined that better
prioritisation of activities could further improve the usefulness.
65
ELA has made progress in improving the availability and accessibility of information on
labour mobility rights and obligations within the EU through information campaigns.
Stakeholders appreciated ELA's proactive engagement and the development of tools
enhancing cooperation between national authorities. ELA also contributed to facilitating
64
65
For the evaluation matrix see Annex III.
Annex V, p. 116 and Supporting Study, Annex VI p. 49 and p. 71-73.
27
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0030.png
and strengthening cooperation among Member States, including by supporting coordinated
and joint inspections.
66
Performance indicators were not available for the reference period and activities covered
by the evaluation, strongly limiting the possibility to monitor development and assess
ELA’s progress towards its specific objectives and to which extent the activities had an
impact.
67
During the period under evaluation ELA started preparing ‘strategies’ in several of its areas
of activity (e.g. capacity building, EURES), without however preparing a more
encompassing strategy covering all its activities, with clear objectives and milestones.
Consistent with the weaknesses of the performance measurement system, the interviews
carried out during the evaluation and the results of the case studies revealed that the extent
to which ELA’s work translated into tangible change on the ground was so far still
unclear.
68
The stakeholder surveys reported that cooperation and interaction with ELA came with
increased costs and efforts for the concerned organisations, which were, however, mostly
considered worth the investment due to the benefits of participating in ELA’s activities.
Participants in ELA’s activities considered that some meetings were too long or being
organised too frequently. They also pointed to the need for a better coordination between
activities.
69
This corresponds to the general observation
70
that activities of different
departments within ELA (e.g. Communication and Enforcement) were not well
coordinated and the responsibilities within ELA not easy to understand.
71
2.
Access to information on rights and obligations with regards to labour mobility
across the Union and relevant services
On the side of
communication and awareness raising campaigns,
ELA had a quick start
with its information campaigns (undeclared work, seasonal work, construction and road
transport) achieving a significant outreach.
72
In the absence of outcome and result related
indicators the effects of the campaigns cannot be assessed.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Supporting Study, Section 4.
As the period of ELA operation is increasing it can be expected that also its impacts will start to show
and thereby increasing the need and importance of impact indicators.
Annex V, p118/119 .
Annex V, p. 123.
Annex V, p. 121 and 123.
Annex V, p. 121 - The organigramme also raises questions: e.g. is all analysis performed by the ‘analysis
and risk assessment’ cell? – or do other ‘cells’ also perform analysis? – What is the division of labour
between staff working on ‘information and services’ and the ‘communication’ staff? – Who has the
responsibility for campaigns and how are the thematic units involved in those?
#Rights4AllSeasons Campaign -60 million views in social media; #Road2FairTransport Campaign - 125
million online impressions
28
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0031.png
ELA's information campaigns as a primary method for facilitating access to information
were generally viewed positively by stakeholders, including by public administration
representatives and EU-level social partners.
73
The promotion activities as part of the
campaigns were particularly welcomed.
Concerning the implementation and coordination of campaigns, communication between
ELA and its stakeholders (ranging from national authorities to social partners – via surveys,
interviews, and case studies) showed some weaknesses. Main issues concerned the
timeliness and targeting of communication by ELA and reluctance or inability by
stakeholders to provide and disseminate the information as quickly as requested by ELA.
74
Stakeholders views varied based on their direct interest. ELA staff focused more on the
volume of work and coherence in terms of tasks, whilst the Management Board looked at
the outreach of such campaigns. Social partners were most concerned about their timely
involvement in the preparation of the campaigns, and the impact to their main beneficiaries
(workers and employers).
75
National authorities as well as social partner organisations,
expressed the desire to be consulted and involved early on, so to be able to influence the
campaigns, to better link them with own activities and to bring on board further (e.g.
regional or thematic) partners. ELA showed awareness of these issues and indicated it was
aiming to improve the situation.
76
When it comes to
information and services,
ELA’s information working group undertook
a mapping of relevant information sources. Stakeholders, primarily social partners but also
experts from public employment services and labour inspectorates, identified a further
need for easily accessible and practical information concerning rights and obligations for
mobile workers and employers. They argued that much of the existing information is
fragmented across different EU-level and national websites and is insufficiently useful.
Given that national authorities are in charge with the quality of the information available
on their websites, there is a subjective approach regarding their views. Nevertheless, this
issue is addressed through a focus on coherence with EU initiatives, such as the Single
Digital Gateway, which provides a centralised approach.
In the public consultation, the provision of information to individuals, employers and
social partner organisations regarding rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility
was the most frequently identified area for further involvement of ELA.
77
In 2020 ELA set up a facility, to provide translations of information on labour mobility
and social security coordination, which 76 out of 124 respondents to public consultation,
73
74
75
76
77
Annex V and Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.1..
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 1, p. 13.
Annex V and Supporting Study, Annex VI, Sections 2.1.1. 4.6.1.1 and 5.4.1.1
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 1, p. 9.
Annex V, p. 117 and Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (2024), Fair Mobility in the EU and
the role of the European Labour Authority, p. 48 and 51 (https://belgian-
presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf),
Supporting Study, p. 49
29
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0032.png
among them representatives of national authorities in 19 Member States (responses from
24 Member States), considered as very useful. Only six respondents found this service not
useful. The service was in particular welcomed by national authorities
78
, which benefited
fully from the task. ELA’s support via the translation facility helped national authorities
save costs, which could have influenced the positive approach.
79
The service was
perceived as valuable also by others stakeholders, (e.g. Social Partners, members of the
ELA Management Board) centralising the service, ELA ensured a coordinated approach
to translation, in different areas of its work, by using also existing Commission’s
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT).
As regards
EURES,
ELA took over the management of the EURES European
Coordination Office (ECO); the annual programming cycle; the Performance
Measurement System; the EURES portal; training for the EURES Academy; EURES
communication activities; the European (Online) Job Days; and the Report on Labour
shortages and surpluses.
80
This transition went smoothly
81
, despite persistent staff
vacancies and the limited experience of newly recruited personnel.
82
During the initial
phase, ELA was able to build on the enthusiasm of its staff and stakeholders, including
substantial good will.
83
However, over the period under evaluation, the effectiveness of the
activities in support of EURES declined and certain issues emerged that negatively
impacted performance (see below).
84
In taking over the management of ECO, ELA adopted a ‘business continuity’ approach,
which facilitated the acquisition and learning process of the different tasks associated with
the role of the ECO.
85
Smaller adaptations were made, making the EURES Portal more
user-friendly; increasing the ambitions of the Report on Labour Shortages and Surpluses
by adding elements of general labour market analysis; new ways of interacting with
national coordination offices (NCOs) by focusing on bilateral meetings; the EURES
Communication Strategy for 2021-2024 was drafted to increase awareness of EURES; a
review of the training offer was undertaken.
86
These changes were overall positively
received by the national authorities, however, the partners were also critical about
shortcomings of ELA’s work, such as a too long time-horizon for the implementation of
the new Portal Strategy, a lack of induction courses for new staff or insufficient attention
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
This is the best value for activities to provide information on rights and obligations concerning labour
mobility. It is followed by targeted workshops (74), provision of accessible information (73) and
communication and dissemination activities (e.g. information campaigns (64)) (Responses to Question
6 in the stakeholder survey; n=124). – For details: Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 31.
Supporting Study, Section 4.12.1.
Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, Table 6.4
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 34.
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 21.
For a detailed analysis see Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2.
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 34/35.
Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, p. 22.
Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, pp. 25-26.
30
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0033.png
to EURES ‘matchmaking’ function/activity (of jobseekers with vacancies) as compared to
information provision. The broader analysis concerning labour shortages has been
publicised in conferences together with Eurofound, however, it meant going beyond a
focus on cross-border labour mobility and it meant entering the area of general labour
market analysis. National coordination offices repeatedly regretted that, different from the
Commission, ELA as manager of ECO is not in the position to provide guidance on legal
questions.
87
Responses to the surveys supporting the evaluation (by the EURES NCOs, Commission
representatives) and the findings of the case study on the EURES Coordination Office
indicate that EURES is not fully integrated into ELA’s portfolio of activities. NCO’s were
the more critical voices in this context, given their direct interest in EURES. Nevertheless,
also social partners and national ministries were vocal actors in terms of identifying the
need to improve ELA’s effectiveness in this activity
The system which monitors job placements facilitated through the EURES Portal or staff
88
that was put in place by the Commission was no longer used by ELA. As a result, no figures
are included in the programming documents as targets nor in the annual activity reports to
present the achievements. A KPI that the Commission had used in the last EURES
evaluation and which could have been maintained
89
, was the ratio of the number of
placements with EURES support to the total number of workers that changed country
within the EU within a year. The EURES network facilitated at least 84 580 placements in
2018 and 83 360 placements in 2019. The Annual Reports on Intra-EU Labour Mobility
90 91
estimate that 880 000 persons changed country within the EU to work in 2018, and 825 000
in 2019. EURES placements therefore corresponded to 9.6% of active movers in 2018 and
10.1% in 2019. The number of EURES placements in 2021 and 2022 – 53 200 and 48 731
(figure 9) – in relation to the annual number of active movers – 650 000 and 713 000 –
results in a considerable decrease to 8.2% and 6,8% of the EURES market.
Surveys, interviews and the EURES case study show that a significant number of
stakeholder groups are dissatisfied about this development.
92
Overall, the effectiveness of
the EURES portal in so far as it is used by citizens is declining, falling below the
comparison points identified (Figure 2).
This development arises from specific decisions taken by ELA, as outlined above. Beyond
that, the declining effectiveness could be partially due to the complex division of
responsibilities between ELA and the Commission services as foreseen in the Founding
87
88
89
90
91
92
Supporting study, Annex VI, p 135.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0217
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0217
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/40821c65-2a24-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1
Annex V, p. 120/121.
31
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0034.png
Regulation
93
. While the Commission continued to be responsible for the technical
operation of the EURES Portal and related IT services and the financial schemes under
EURES
94
, ELA managed the ECO and was the system owner of the EURES portal. Such
a division allowed the Commission to outsource the ECO management while EURES
could continue to benefit from the Commission’s corporate solutions and IT developments.
Over time ELA developed a different view on the steps to be taken. While the Commission
services put priority on aligning EURES with Europass, this was not considered a priority
by ELA as reflected in the allocation of staff and activities carried out by ELA
95
. On the
other hand, ELA expressed a need regarding the development of a stand-alone IT platform
towards end-users, something not foreseen in the EURES Regulation.
3.
Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in enforcing
relevant Union law, such as facilitating concerted and joint inspections
The analysis of the activities contributing to this specific objective showed that ELA
introduced structure to these activities and has considerably improved their functioning
compared to the start of the operation of the Authority.
96
Four operational objectives (six activities) contributed to this specific objective. The
financially biggest consisted in facilitating the cooperation and acceleration of exchange
of information between Member States and supporting their effective compliance with
cooperation obligations (for details see Figure 5). The cooperation and NLOs office as well
as the social partners liaison function contributed to this operational objective.
Most of the NLOs were appointed at an early stage in 2020. This resulted in a situation
where in 2020 there was more staff seconded from national authorities than other members
of staff (33 vs. 30). This created some difficulties with regard to the availability of NLOs
to work in ELAs premises.
97
Following a selection procedure organised by the relevant
Member State, ELA carries out administrative checks on the proposed designated NLO
before the secondment starts
98
. Initially, ELA tried to integrate NLOs as well as other SNEs
in the thematic work of ELA. This approach was revisited, and after extensive discussions
in the Management Board, a specific team was formed in the cooperation support unit, the
cooperation and NLOs office,
regrouping the NLOs and providing for
social partner
liaison.
By answering questions concerning their respective national systems and
93
94
95
96
97
98
Supporting Study, p. 84 and Supporting Study, Annex VII, p.33/36.
The Targeted Mobility Schemes and the Cross-Border Partnerships.
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2.
Supporting Study, Annex VII, p. 55.
European Court of Auditors (2023), Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2022, p. 168,
para 3.18.8.: ‘ELA’s internal rules require seconded national experts and national liaison officers to
reside in Bratislava. … ELA was unable to produce any proof, in response to a request we made, that a
certain NLO lived in Bratislava. … ELA’s ex-ante checks on these declarations are weak: they are based
solely on the declarations of the SNEs and NLOs, and not on documentary evidence. There are no ex-
post checks.’
Annual report on EU Agencies for the financial year 2022 (europa.eu).
Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, Article 32 (1). For a recent effort see: Management Board Decision 2024/7:
https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Decision_07_Revision_of_SNE_rules_2024.pdf.
32
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0035.png
organising events (conferences, workshops) with their respective national authorities (in
some cases, several NLOs jointly organised such events for their national authorities) the
NLOs provided a platform for ELA to present its activities.
The supporting role played by NLOs in areas such as support to CJIs or cooperation and
exchange of information across Member States was confirmed in interviews with national
authorities. However, the interviews, as well as the survey with ELA staff, revealed also
differences in the interpretation of the role and responsibilities of NLO, by the NLO
him/herself and/or the sending Member States.
99
For the interviews, respondents from ELA
staff flagged that MS should be left the discretion to decide on the number of NLOs, whilst
other ELA staff pointed out that NLOs involvement in unit meetings and daily work should
be decreased, defining also their role taking into account their limited capacity to perform
administrative work. From the perspective of national authorities, given their direct interest
in the work of the NLOs, the position was more favourable towards their involvement and
contribution to ELA’s tasks.
Logistic and technical support to concerted and joint inspections (CJI)
is often
perceived as ELA’s flagship activity.
100
Main outcomes of these inspections were, next to
a better understanding of inspection practices in the participating countries, immediate
access to and understanding of e.g. social security registers in countries of origin.
101
As
such ELA’s support to CJIs was highly appreciated to facilitate and enhance cooperation
between Member States. Nevertheless, the reports on these inspections, which are provided
by the authorities in the hosting Member State, were often made available to ELA late in
the process or not provided at all. As a result, ELA's access to lessons from previous
inspections and its ability to develop remedial measures, such as trainings or
communication material, were delayed.
Discussions in the inspections working group led to routines of organising CJIs that
allowed the involved parties to contribute to the best of their abilities. At the end of the
period under evaluation issues concerning late or insufficient involvement have mostly
phased out.
102
However, in the absence of a meaningful KPI an assessment of the effects
of CJIs, beyond the perception of their usefulness cannot be made.
Analysis and risk assessments
was an area not identified as a priority within ELA (see
Figure 5). Beyond the recognition that ELA’s analytical efforts are so far mostly limited
to mapping, the supporting study identified a lack of coordination or cooperation between
99
100
101
102
Supporting Study, Section 5.4.2.
See e.g. Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (2024), Fair Mobility in the EU and the role of
the European Labour Authority, p. 6 and p. 12 (https://belgian-
presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf)
Case study 3, Supporting Study, Annex VII and ELA (2023), Report on concerted and joint inspections
This concerns all CJIs, but in particular so called ‘week of actions’ where inspections are conducted in
several MS at the same time to attract attention and raise awareness of certain issues. See also Supporting
Study, Annex VII, Case study 3.
33
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0036.png
ELA’s analytical efforts and the organisation of CJIs. This, however, was also related to
reluctant reporting by Member States about structural issues occurring during CJIs. Data
protection and privacy issues were other barriers to the process
103
. The Founding
Regulation does not provide ELA with a detailed position when it comes to processing of
personal data and national authorities are reluctant to share their information, which
hindered their ability to offer analytical services at a company level or to proactively
identify and refer suspected cases to Member States. ELA staff highlighted
104
that data
protection concerns were a major factor causing deficiencies in risk assessments and the
integration of such assessments with other tasks, including CJIs and EURES services.
National authorities
105
and the Report of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU
on the work of ELA raised similar concerns regarding the possibility of ELA to process
personal data for some of the tasks defined in the founding Regulation.
106
Over the first years of ELA’s operation
capacity building
activities were organised on a
rather ad hoc basis. Still, they were assessed very positively by stakeholders and they also
played an important role for the development of the Authority.
107 108
According to ELA staff and Management Board Members capacity building was initially
assigned a lower priority compared to other ELA tasks, despite Article 11 of the founding
Regulation mandating its role in supporting Member States with consistent enforcement
of Union law. However, the importance of capacity building has been recognized and
reflected in a growing budget and the launch of initiatives such as the 'Call for Good
Practices.' The initiative and subsequent training and workshops have been well-received
by stakeholders for fostering technical competencies and stakeholder collaboration
109
.
ELA's capacity-building efforts, which include activities like seminars and peer-learning
events, have played a role in enhancing cooperation, information exchange, and supporting
concerted and joint inspections. A capacity building strategy 2024 – 2030 was prepared
during the evaluation period (adopted in 2023), capacity building was partly dealt with as
a specific operational activity
110
and partly as a horizontal feature, with links to other
operational objectives.
111
It is not clear whether the programmes mentioned as part of the
103
Annex V, p. 119 and Supporting Study, p. 124. - Both ELA staff and stakeholders flagged concerns
regarding data protection rules.
104
Supporting Study, Annex VI Section 4.4.1.5.
105
https://wayback.archive-it.org/12710/20240719000258/https://belgian-
presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf
106
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.4.1.5.
107
Supporting Study, p. 62.
108
E.g. in March 2023 ELA organised a 2-day training event on SOLVIT which was greatly appreciated
and also the capacity building provided in the context of Posting 360 was appreciated by Member State
authorities and Commission.
109
Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.2.
110
ELA (2022), Single Programming Document 2023-2025 p. 28 and p. 47. – Strategic area 5 of the
multiannual programming is called ‘contributing to capacity building’ and Activity 8 of the annual work
programme is ‘capacity building’.
111
ELA (2023)
Capacity Building Strategy 2024-2030,
p. 6.
34
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0037.png
strategy (IMI-PROVE, Posting 360, Transport Support and PROGRESS) constitute the
main/exclusive activities as regards capacity building or whether and to which extent
further efforts are to be expected. The role of the ‘Cooperation and NLO’s office’ for
capacity building is not explained in the strategy.
Facilitation of digital tools
received in 2023 limited support (see Figure 5), although it is
expected to contribute to 4 specific objectives and one horizontal objective. This situation
together with the importance attributed to digitalisation triggers the question why it is not
mainstreamed into the different other topics, as it might have quite distinct implications in
different areas.
The activities performed under this specific objective led to progress as compared to the
points of comparison. The NLOs provide for the possibilities to ask for information from
another Member State and Joint Inspections have helped inspection authorities to achieve
more direct cooperation and mutual understanding of routines, as well increased
competences how to effectively inspect work situations of mobile workers.
4.
Mediate and facilitate a solution in cases of cross-border disputes between
Member States
Mediation was one of the least prioritised operational objectives by the Authority
112
over
its first years of operation, with a very limited budget share dedicated to it in 2021 and
2022 (respectively, 1% and 3% of ELA’s budget).
113
The purpose of these activities is to resolve cross-border disputes between Member States,
without prejudice to the competence of the Administrative Commission for the
Coordination of Social Security Systems. Article 13 of the Founding Regulation sets out
that there should be a two-stage process and also further details of how the process should
be organised. Based on these requirements ELA had set up a working group with Member
States which – supported by contractors – developed detailed and extensive rules of
procedures. Four main documents were prepared.
114
For each of the workflows and
guidelines, several accompanying templates to standardise the procedures were developed.
This set of documents was finalised in August 2022.
115
In parallel, ELA had negotiated
cooperation agreements with SOLVIT and with the Administrative Commission for the
112
113
114
115
This was also perceived like that by ELA staff and Management Board members. In the survey only 8%
considered mediation as prioritised. – Annex VII, p. 131 and Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 72 (Figure
68).
Supporting Study, Annex V, Section 3.3.1.5.
General Guidelines and Workflows for the mediation procedure (only in English); Guidance for the
Member States on the ELA mediation procedure (in all EU-27 languages); Guidance for the Mediators
and Mediation Board on the ELA mediation procedure (in all EU-27 languages); Workflow Guidance
for the interaction between ELA and the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social
Security Systems (only in English).
Approved as ‘Guidelines on the Rules of Procedure for mediation of the European Labour Authority’
by ELA’s Management Board (Decision
No 16/2022).
35
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0038.png
Coordination of Social Security Systems (concluded in 2021)
116
and undertaken efforts to
inform about and popularise the mediation role.
While no solid estimates were available concerning the number of potential cases for
mediation, the use of this service by Member States could become more likely with ELA
gaining more experience and stakeholders realising the value added and quality of ELA’s
work over a longer period. Furthermore, against initial intentions, none of the activities
performed by the Administrative Commission (in particular the Conciliation Board) were
transferred to ELA. As such, up until now, the contribution of the activity to the operational
objective has been low and mainly indirect, thus overall, there is no progress with respect
to the point of comparison. Possible causes for the lack of progress relate to the fact that
no other tasks were transferred from the Administrative Commission to ELA. ELA was
mainly expected to provide mediation in new areas. In that context it is worth mentioning
the generally low number of cases and experience of other similar mediation bodies with
longer experience in the field (e.g. the Administrative Commission or the European
Banking Authority).
117
Furthermore, the entirely voluntary, non-binding
118
and still heavy
procedure combined with the need for ELA to build up trust among Member States could
be a further explanation for the low use of the mediation service during the evaluation
period. In addition, this activity was not prioritised by ELA. Finally, the mediation function
was fully operational and available to interested parties only since September 2022, while
the evaluation covered the period until June 2023. Thus, the short period of fully
functional service (10 months) and the low number of cases does not allow for drawing
robust conclusions.
5.
Support the cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work
The key action under this operational objective was to transfer the European Platform
Tackling Undeclared Work (‘the Platform’) from the Commission to ELA. ELA decided
to make the Platform part of the enforcement unit and to operate it in a way as similar as
possible to other working groups within ELA. While enforcement always had been an
important element of its work, the Platform follows a ‘holistic approach’, meaning that the
116
117
118
Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 4, p. 61.
As an example, seven cases were submitted to the Conciliation Board of the Administrative Commission
between 2010 and 2017 (p. 17,
IA supporting the proposal for European Labour Authority,
SWD (2018)
68 final. The European Banking Authority mediation procedure dealt with 2 cases since 2018
(Supporting Study, Annex VII Case studies, Case study 4 on mediation). In view of that, it may be
unrealistic to expect a high number of mediation cases per year.
The importance of voluntary and non-binding nature of the mediation was emphasised by social partners
in targeted consultations in preparing the ELA proposal (p. 17,
IA supporting the proposal for European
Labour Authority,
SWD (2018) 68 final,) as well as during the consultations supporting the evaluation.
36
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0039.png
Platform was not set up to ‘just’ fight undeclared work
119
, but to adopt a wider approach,
including the exploration of causes of problems and – ideally – preventative work.
120
Since its start in 2016 the Platform did not limit itself to address issues related to un- or
underdeclared work in situations with a cross-border dimension but was a forum of a fairly
broad exchange between labour inspectorates and in some cases labour ministries to tackle
undeclared and falsely declared work in its various forms, thereby also reducing the risk
of workers to be exposed to labour exploitation and to explore how different internal set-
ups support or complicate the authorities’ work. Thus, the Platform supported mutual
(organisational) learning among high-ranking practitioners, with a fairly heterogenous
background, reflecting the diversity of structures at the national level. With this design, the
Platform could be seen as a precursor to ELA as a whole (except for the EURES part).
121
Labour inspectorates and national ministries were the two most positive groups of
stakeholders on the performance of the Platform. Stakeholders viewed the opportunity to
exchange with other national authorities as the most useful contribution created by ELA.
Furthermore, 55% of the respondents to the public consultation considered the quality of
ELA’s work in relation to the Platform as ‘very high’ or ‘rather high’.
122
Meanwhile, a number of social partners representatives, highlighted insufficient
cooperation between the Working Group on Inspections and the UDW Platform
123
,
expressed the need for more sectoral exchanges to address diverse determinants of
undeclared work, and emphasised the importance of integrating the Platform's knowledge
into ELA's operational objectives.
124
Comparing the situation in 2023 with the situation in 2019, the Platform has managed the
transition to ELA and maintained a strong element of mutual learning and exchange,
including on questions how to strategically manage labour inspections (Figure 9). The
119
120
121
122
123
124
See e.g. the Summary of the first Seminar of the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work, December 2016:
‘Developing
a
Holistic
Approach
to
Tackling
Undeclared
Work’
https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/UDW%20PS-holistic-_exec%20sum.pdf
- Next
to the ‘fight’ against undeclared work, which is typically characterised by the attention to better
enforcement, the Platform paid equal attention to motivational aspects, such as the design of voucher
systems for household services or minimum income schemes and information campaigns to inform
workers of their rights and of the advantages of declared work.
European Commission (2023), Study on the effectiveness of policies to tackle undeclared work,
(https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/065213), p. 39 ff. – The study shows that the motivation for
undeclared work is often economic necessity i.e. insufficient possibility to generate minimum income
with regular employment.
The Platform had undertaken first step to organise CJIs, it had done preparatory work for ELA’s first
campaign and it had organised mutual learning and capacity building events.
Annex V and Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.4..
Notably, the composition of the Working Group and the UDW Platform is very similar, with most
members being present in both.
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.2.
37
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0040.png
potential to more systematically assess, together with the national authorities, how their
performance compares with national authorities in other countries was not explored.
4.1.2. Efficiency
Efficiency of such a young organisation as ELA is difficult to assess as the set-up phase
develops routines and explores how to deliver in the best way on the mandate. Such
experimentation comes with failures and organisational learning.
The absence of a system of key performance indicators did not allow for a thorough
monitoring and for ELA to communicate clearly on its performance towards its
stakeholders. Only 24% of the respondents to the stakeholder survey considered ELA to
be highly efficient when performing its work.
125
The set-up process as well as staff structure and fluctuations made it difficult for the staff
to handle ELA’s workload and to implement the budget. While significant improvements
can be recognised throughout the period under evaluation, there is room for further
improvements of the functioning of ELA (without additional resources).
1.
Cost-effectiveness of actions and balance between operational and
administrative expenditure
Throughout most of the evaluation period, ELA did not have a coherent strategy for
tracking key performance indicators (KPIs). Without such an analytical framework,
effectiveness as part of the overall cost-effectiveness assessment cannot be measured. The
2022 Annual Activity report did include some task-related output indicators, but it lacked
comprehensiveness and quantified results-focused indicators. This limited the analysis and
assessment of the cost-effectiveness of activities, which combined the quantitative data
with qualitative insights and stakeholders’ perceptions from desk research, surveys, and
interviews.
A comparison of the financial forecast included in the Proposal for the Regulation and the
structure of the actual commitments made by ELA shows that, even when disregarding
2019, the set-up process went somewhat slower than expected, and the share of
administrative costs was in particular in 2019-2020, linked to a small budget, higher than
expected. Since 2021 the share of the administrative budget corresponds to the forecast.
ELA had difficulties implementing the available budget, leading to increasing outstanding
payments over the years.
Figure 10: Expenditure forecast in the Commission proposal for a Regulation (in
million euro and as %)
126
2019
125
126
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Question 20 of the Stakeholder Survey (24% of 205 respondents).
COM(2018)131 final, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a European Labour Authority, p. 59.
38
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0041.png
2.416
Staff
22%
0.568
Admin costs
5%
8.088
Operational costs
73%
Total commitments
11.072
6.658
30%
1.115
5%
14.172
65%
21.945
11.071
28%
6.47
17%
21.39
55%
38.931
15.125
34%
5.16
11%
24.695
55%
44.98
17.349
34%
5.65
11%
28
55%
50.999
17.696
34%
5.763
11%
28.56
55%
52.019
Figure 11:
Actual commitments made by ELA (in million euro and in %)
127
2019
0.35
2020
3.07
25%
3.25
26%
5.99
49%
12.31
2021*
6.46
30%
2.75
13%
12.16
57%
21.37
2022
11.15
33%
4.27
13%
18.06
54%
33.48
2023**
13.92
35%
5.62
14%
20.44
51%
39.98
Staff
19%
0.99
Admin costs
53%
0.54
Operational costs
29%
Total commitments
1.88
* In 2021 part of ELA’s activities was still paid by the Commission
** For 2023: budget, other years: commitments
In the initial stage, ELA was developed around key activities, EURES, the Platform
Tackling Undeclared Work, the network of NLOs and CJIs. Some activities (e.g. CJI) took
time to develop and others were seen as non-priority because of resource constraints, such
as lacking staff and expertise. The latter resulted in some activities still not being fully
developed at the end of the evaluation period. Such areas were e.g. ELA’s contribution to
social security coordination or ELA’s analysis/risk assessment capacity, and the mediation
function.
Since 2021, more than 50% of ELA’s budget went to operational costs. That meant that
operational expenditure accounted in ELA for a higher share than in other agencies falling
under the remit of DG EMPL (Eurofound, Cedefop around 25%, EU-OSHA below 50%).
The share of staff costs was lower (2023: 35%) than for the other agencies (Eurofound,
Cedefop: around 66%, EU-OSHA: more than 40%). This corresponded to the values
127
ELA Annual Activity Reports 2019-2022, Supporting study, Annex V, p. 4 (Table 1).
39
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0042.png
estimated in the Impact Assessment,
128
,
129
but is particularly challenging as the share of
SNEs, who are not able to initiate financial operations, is higher in ELA than with other
agencies.
Figure 12:
130 131
Operational and staff cost per ELA operational objective 2021 and 2022
2021
Operational
Objective
Information
Services
EURES
and
Operational
costs
€ 1,064,523
65%
€ 7,960,400
97%
2022
Total costs
€ 1,627,565
Staff costs
€ 563,042
35%
€ 223,625
3%
€ 465,871
55%
Operational
costs
€ 888,946
61%
€ 11,576,697
96%
€ 410,666
22%
Staff costs
€ 558,986
39%
€ 463,944
4%
€ 1,456,417
78%
Total costs
€ 1,447,932
€ 8,184,025
€ 12,040,641
Cooperation
exchange
information
Mediation
and
of
€ 381,686
45%
€ 847,557
€ 1,867,083
€ 95,419
53%
€ 831,757
63%
€ 1,353,417
90%
€ 20,000
8%
€ 138,995
43%
€ 11,846,197
83%
€ 85,985
47%
€ 490,410
37%
€ 151,554
10%
€ 228,758
92%
€ 182,466
57%
€ 2,391,712
17%
€ 181,404
€ 1,322,167
€ 379,628
69%
€ 1,525,000
70%
€ 415,370
67%
€ 601,623
64%
€ 1,232,511
74%
€ 17,030,441
80%
€ 167,526
31%
€ 639,083
30%
€ 207,575
33%
€ 335,052
36%
€ 431,368
26%
€ 4,259,951
20%
€ 547,154
€ 2,164,083
Concerted
and
joint inspections
Tackling
undeclared work
Analysis and Risk
Assessment
Capacity building
Total
€ 1,504,971
€ 622,945
€ 248,758
€ 936,675
€ 321,461
€ 14,237,909
€ 1,663,879
€ 21,290,392
Source:
Own computations by the authors of the supporting study based on the Annual Activity Report of ELA, the
Annual Work programmes, and the Annual accounts. The total budget committed to Contract Agents, Temporary Agents
and SNE staff was divided by the respective total amount of FTE allocated in different years to obtain the average staff
costs per staff category. The committed budget was taken from the Annual Activity Reports, and the amount of FTE
allocated was taken from the Annual Work programmes. To obtain the total staff costs, the average staff costs per staff
category were multiplied by the number of FTE in each operational objective and for each staff category. For 2021, it is
only known the division of FTEs over the Pillars, and the division over operational objectives within the pillars was
based on the division in 2022.
128
129
130
131
Annex IV and Supporting Study, Annex V, Table 2.
The distribution between the different cost-categories appears to have stabilised as from 2022.
Supporting Study, p. 90 (Table 8) or Supporting Study, Annex V, Table 5.
Actual payments.
40
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0043.png
The strong weight of operational costs was mainly due to EURES and the Platform
Tackling Undeclared work. These two activities accounted in 2021 for 79% of the
operational costs and in 2022 for 70%. Accordingly, without these two activities, ELA
would have had a substantially lower share of operational costs, to be expected for an
organisation in a very fast built-up process.
Comparing 2021 and 2022 figures also shows that still at that time, cost structures at ELA
were in parts not yet stabilised. The high staff costs for ‘cooperation and exchange of
information’ as from 2022, stem from the payments to the NLOs contributing to this
operational objective. The skewed budget allocation also became evident in the results of
the activities. Some activities such as analysis and risks assessment, capacity building and
mediation were still underdeveloped at the beginning of 2023. Interviewees reported
having perceived a lack of coordination between units of ELA. The presence of multiple
newsletters within the European Labour Authority (ELA) also suggests that there may be
an opportunity for improved internal coordination, which could potentially lead to better
use of resources.
132
While travelling and meeting partners in person might have been important during the set-
up phase, responses from the surveys as from the interviews
133
suggest that participants
agree that meetings and travelling could have been organised in a more efficient way, with
shorter, less or virtual meetings.
Translations are essential to facilitate understanding in a multilingual environment and
providing translations demonstrated ELA’s usefulness and increased the acceptance of
ELA by its national partners. Users highlighted that such translations would not have been
achievable for them without the assistance of ELA. Whether this meant that the overall
costs of translations were lower because of the Translation Facility cannot be directly
measured. However, centralising such a service for which a lot of overlap between the type
of information that is translated exists, could lead to efficiency gains. The average costs
per translated document decreased from roughly EUR 2 300 in 2020 to less than EUR
2 200 in 2021. The evaluation didn’t gather evidence on the extent to which ELA used or
explored other possible tools for translation (such as machine translation).
The transfer of EURES to ELA has created a complex interface between the Commission
and ELA. It has led to unintended effects, such as higher costs for the EU budget and higher
costs for national EURES members and partners when searching for legal guidance and,
compared to the past, less jobseekers actually individually registered with EURES (see
section 3.2 and 4.1.1). The cost per placement is a key metric for evaluating the cost-
effectiveness of EURES.
134
The ex-post evaluation of EURES showed improving cost-
132
E.g. the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work features traditionally a newsletter, while the Authority as
such also features a newsletter, both covering in important parts similar topics.
133
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.3, p 51.
134
EURES activities are one of the few where the evaluation had results and costs developments and could
compare the evolution of cost-effectiveness over time.
41
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0044.png
effectiveness from 2016 to 2019 due to a lower cost per placement. ELA has discontinued
this indicator post-2019. A relative comparison in terms of placements through EURES
shows a decrease from over 80 000 in 2019 to nearly 49 000 in 2022 (the latter being
influenced by no portal data included and COVID impact). Also, the placements decrease
from 53 200 in 2021 to 48 731 in 2022, whilst the budget increased by 47%. Hence, the
cost-effectiveness of the current arrangements cannot be considered as satisfactory.
As regards the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work, the budget which went to external
contractors has remained very much stable, however, with 5 members of staff the number
of people providing support to the platform has doubled compared to the situation when it
was organised by the Commission.
Joint inspections are rather resource intensive.
135
The evaluation arrives at the estimate that
in 2022 the average CJI did cost approximately EUR 46 000.
136
Similar to other authorities
(e.g. police), the national inspectors’ powers are linked to a specific territory. Hence, they
are only able to accompany and assist the hosting organisation in another Member State
and have no executive or investigative powers.
A detailed analysis of full costs (including e.g. working time of national officials or costs
of coordination between different organisation entities at the national level) incurred by
Member States and other stakeholders, remained outside the scope of the analysis. It can
nevertheless be noted that ELA’s stakeholders, national authorities as well as social
partners, recognise that while engaging with ELA leads to an increase in the costs for their
organisations, for the majority benefits outweigh costs. 42% of the respondents are of the
opinion that benefits outweigh costs to a great extent, while 24% consider their
involvement with ELA mainly as an obligation or an investment, suggesting that there is
room for improvement.
Figure 13:
How do the costs you have referred to compare to the
benefits of ELA’s
activities and services for your organisation? (n=121)
135
136
They require labour inspectors from one Member State to travel to another and to stay there for some
time, as well as providing interpretation at the place of inspection and efforts to coordinate between two
(or more) organisations.
See Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 3. In informal discussions ELA staff reported that in 2023
the average costs per CJI were at around 20 000 Euro. Even if the calculation method might be somewhat
different from the supporting study, this suggests considerable improvements from 2022 to 2023.
42
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0045.png
Source: Supporting Study, Annex VI, Survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023)
2.
Appropriateness of resource-investment
From a financial perspective, there was broad agreement among staff and management that
ELA had sufficient financial resources to carry out its tasks
137
, but there were issues with
fund utilisation, particularly in the early years of operation.
With 60 out of 144 members of staff being SNEs, ELA had the highest proportion of SNEs
of all Union decentralised agencies.
138
Since SNEs are temporary workers not directly
contracted by ELA, a high share of SNEs provides particular challenges for the
organisation. In a young organisation it increases staff instability as the limited duration of
SNEs stay with the organisation is making consolidation more difficult. In the longer term,
however, reliance on SNEs could be an advantage as they can bring diverse perspectives
and experiences to the organisation. It may also present an opportunity for knowledge
transfer and skills development within ELA and back to the Member States, thereby
promoting a better understanding of how Europe works within national administrations.
However, combined with a high level of contracting and a considerable number of trainees,
this can create instability in the organisation.
139
The issue was also raised by the European
Parliament in its discharge for the year 2021
140
and was acknowledged by ELA itself.
The European Parliament's discharge procedures for the European Labour Authority
expressed repeatedly concerns about ELAs financial management, and highlighted the
importance of strengthening the management and control systems to ensure the proper
functioning of the Authority.
141
Recruitment processes, including a gender imbalance of
137
138
139
140
141
Annex V, Section Efficiency.
Texts adopted - Discharge 2021: European Labour Authority - Wednesday, 10 May 2023 (europa.eu),.
European Court of Auditors (2023),
Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2022,
para
3.18.11 and 3.18.12.
Texts adopted - Discharge 2021: European Labour Authority - Wednesday, 10 May 2023 (europa.eu)
Article 11 and 12.
Discharge 2021, Art. 4 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0191_EN.pdf)
and Discharge 2022, Art. 35-37 (https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/TA-9-2024-
0281_en.docx)
.
43
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0046.png
senior management and operational deficiencies, in particular the significant reduction in
the registration rates for EURES are further points mentioned critically in the discharge.
As outlined in the Single Programming Document 2023-2025, ELA planned to increase
the number of Temporary Agents. Nonetheless, ELA noted that its powers to change the
distribution between Temporary Agents, Contract Agents and SNEs were limited, as the
Authority was bound by the financial legislative statement accompanying the Founding
Regulation of ELA. Thus, only a rather limited change to the distribution between the
different types of staff was implemented.
142
The situation in ELA was further complicated
as 41 members of staff (28.5% - see Figure 5) worked on horizontal or administrative tasks,
where SNEs are underrepresented and partly for legal reasons excluded (e.g. financial and
human resources). These figures show that in spite of ELA being bigger than e.g.
Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF, EU-OSHA, EIGE and FRA, the share of staff working on non-
operational activities is approximately as large, and sometimes even larger (FRA and EIGE
work with consistently lower shares).
143
Almost half of staff that responded to the survey (25 of 58 respondents) and one member
of the Management Board indicated a mismatch between envisaged activities and available
human resources in the period under evaluation
144
. Whilst most respondents to the ELA
stakeholder and staff and Management Board surveys agree that there was a need for
prioritisation in ELA’s tasks, it was
145
flagged by representatives from all groups that the
way in which de-prioritisation/ prioritisation took place created problems in the
development process.
Interviewees with trade unions represented in ELA’s governance structure, stressed the
need for ELA to focus on a limited number of tasks to ensure efficiency. In some areas,
such as (a) the mediation function, where very low demand existed, or (b) the provision of
labour market analysis beyond direct connection with labour mobility, resources have been
invested in efforts which cannot be considered absolutely necessary for a highly cost-
effectively and targeted operation of ELA.
3.
Monitoring and reporting
The Authority has implemented various monitoring and reporting mechanisms since its
inception, including the adoption of Consolidated Annual Activity Reports (CAARs) and
an Internal Control Framework (ICF) aligned with the European Commission's revised
framework. The ICF was further refined, and in 2022, the Authority developed ICF
indicators, finalised its risk register, and began developing dashboards for budget
monitoring. Despite these efforts, there was no clear strategy for measuring key
142
143
144
145
Supporting Study, p. 91.
European Commission (2023), Study supporting the evaluation of EU Agencies: Eurofound, Cedefop,
ETF and EU-OSHA, p. 132.
Annex V, Section Efficiency.
Supporting study, Section 4.1.1.5..
44
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0047.png
performance indicators until 2022, which limited the robustness of analysis and the
assessment of the Authority's results in the evaluation. The Court of Auditors observed a
lack of formalised procedures based on direct evidence.
146
The Court of Auditors also
repeatedly identified weaknesses in ELA’s management, ranging from significant carry-
overs to irregular procurement procedures and the use of non-suitable members of staff
(interim agent, trainee) to perform core financial activities.
147
In 2022, the Authority identified its main strategic areas and developed a set of
performance indicators linked to these areas, which were reported in the Consolidated
Annual Activity Report for the first time, however, the identified focus on output-related
indicators and targets (e.g. number of meetings, number of reports) does not allow for
insights into the results or impact of ELAs activities. Such insights would potentially
become possible with indicators such as increased registrations in prior declaration tools,
commitments following participation in mutual learning, achieved matchings between
jobseekers and vacancies, or the value of sanctions imposed in the follow-up to CJIs. Such
indicators need, however, to be developed with regard to the activities and the data
collection possibilities and will need to be discussed with Member States, as they might
need to provide data. Additionally, more complex achievements like building trust between
Member State administrations and improving coordinated policy development, due to
increased awareness of rules in other countries, are not captured by the current monitoring
system. It might be possible to capture such achievements by using indicators such as the
share of labour inspections at national level which involve a cross-border dimension or
indicators comparing the volume of cross-border mobility with inter-regional mobility at
national level or the number of Member States which have a strategy to tackle Undeclared
Work. These higher-level achievements need to be reflected in a good monitoring
system.
148
The available information and the stakeholder input clearly show that the mechanisms for
monitoring, reporting, and evaluation were still in their infancy and required further
improvement. This view was supported by survey responses from ELA staff and the
Management Board
149
, with nearly half of the respondents calling for more consistent
reporting across units and better performance management and monitoring.
146
147
148
149
European Court of Auditors: 2021 – Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (2022),
Para 3.18.10., p. 173
Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021
and European Court of
Auditors: 2022– Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2022 (2023) Para 3.18.8.
Annual
report on EU Agencies for the financial year 2022
European Court of Auditors: 2023 – Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2023 (2024),
p. 179 (Follow-up of previous years’ observations)
Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year
2023
See Blauberger, Michael; Heindlmaier, Anita (2023) The European labour authority in practice, WSI
study no 32e, p. 28.
Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 124.
45
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0048.png
Figure 14: How could ELA improve the performance management system and its
monitoring activities to effectively keep track of the Authority’s performance?
(n=85) (multiple answers possible)
Source: Supporting study - Survey to ELA staff and Management Board (2023)
4.
Governance
In 2021, ELA adopted its first organisational structure, which was ‘designed to promote
an integrated and collaborative approach to fulfilling its mandate’ (see Section 3.1.).
Survey results from ELA staff and the Management Board indicated mixed views about
the governance structure's support for ELA's planning and implementation activities. 39 of
the responding members of ELA staff (including NLOs) and Management Board strongly
agreed to the statement that the governance structure of ELA was adequate, 31 found it to
a moderate extent adequate, and 15 either had no opinion at all or where not convinced of
the governance structure.
Figure 15: Has the governance structure of ELA
–
i.e. the Management Board,
Executive Director and Stakeholder Group
–
adequately supported the planning
and implementation of ELA’s activities? (n=85)
Source: Supporting Study: Survey to ELA staff and Management Board (2023)
46
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0049.png
Issues raised included insufficient establishment of internal coordination and
communication structures, as well as a lack of project management tools and a predictable
common calendar of activities. The survey of ELA staff and the Management Board also
revealed significant staff disagreement regarding the clarity of task division across ELA's
units and the level of cooperation between them.
Despite these challenges, the majority of respondents among ELA staff and Management
Board members held a broadly positive view of ELA's governance structures.
The survey to ELA stakeholders, the public consultation and interviews suggested that the
Management Board generally functioned well, even though there was some limited
criticism on the high frequency of management board meetings and on the selection of
some board members who were not decision-makers or relevant stakeholders at the
national level
150
.
The evaluation did not find significant issues with the functioning of the Stakeholder
Group. Nevertheless, social partners advocated for more focused discussions and a
strategic role with active involvement of the Stakeholder Group in agenda setting
151
.
4.1.3. Coherence
During the evaluation period ELA became well embedded in the broader EU policy
governance structure. ELA attracted substantial political attention at all levels. This was
due to the organisation of and participation in a high number of events (partly with the
support of the NLOs) and systematic Member State visits by the Executive Director as
well as to the support received from EU level social partners (trade unions in particular).
152
In line with its recent establishment and the absence of major policy changes since the
adoption of its Founding Regulation, ELA's mandate and activities were coherent and
complementary to EU level policies.
153
Cooperation between ELA and Commission
services took place across different departments and topics.
154
ELA worked closely with national authorities to ensure the application of updated EU rules
such as those stemming from the revised Posting of Workers Directive
155
, which aims to
guarantee fair wages and a level playing field for posted workers, the social aspects of the
Mobility Package I for the road transport, and the Single Digital Gateway Regulation
156
,
aimed at providing easier access to information and administrative services for citizens and
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.4.2
Supporting study, Annex VI, Section 2.2.
Supporting Study, p. 38 (Section 3.2.1.2).
See also section 4.3 concerning the limitations of ELA’s activities.
E.g. with DG MOVE and DG GROW on IMI-PROVE
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/957/oj
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1724/oj
47
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0050.png
businesses, thus ensuring coherence with EU legislation was a direct objective of ELAs
activities.
ELA’s activities were coherent with that of other agencies and bodies. Formal cooperation
agreements or Memoranda of Understanding were concluded with the European
Commission
157
, Eurofound, Cedefop
158
, EU-OSHA
159
, the Administrative Commission for
the Coordination of Social Security Systems
160
and SOLVIT
161
. While coherence was not
put in question in the interviews, it was highlighted, that cooperation with some
organisations could be strengthened (explicitly identified were Europol and ILO).
No stakeholders identified major overlaps. No indications were found of inconsistencies
or contradictions in the mandates and activities of the Authority and other relevant EU
decentralised agencies. While some cooperation with other agencies (e.g. FRA) has
developed, this cooperation was not developed enough yet to observe synergies.
1.
Coherence with EU level policies and cooperation with the European
Commission
ELA’s annual work programmes as well as the single programming documents of ELA
demonstrate the coherence between EU policies and ELA’s activities. The Impact
Assessment identified ensuring a deeper and fairer internal market and a deeper and fairer
economic and monetary union as the Commission’s political priorities in 2019.
162
The
Commission 2024-2029 has identified ‘Competitiveness’ and ‘European Social Fairness’
as priorities, concretely aiming at making business easier and deepening our Single Market
and ensuring social fairness in today’s economy.
163
It was also observed that other topics
such as greening of the economy, demographic change or managing migration and the
relations with third countries were already among President Juncker’s priorities
164
, without,
however, featuring prominently in ELA’s portfolio. There has been a substantial continuity
in the key areas of ELA’s competence, indicating the continued coherence of ELA’s
activities with the EU policy priorities from the time of setting up the Authority until
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
Memorandum of Understanding between the
European Commission and ELA,
ELA Management Board
Decision 3/2022, of 15/03/2022.
Memorandum of Understanding between
ELA and the European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training,
ELA Management Board Decision 17/2022, of 24/11/2022.
Framework for cooperation between the
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work and ELA,
ELA Management Board Decision 18/2022, of 24/11/2022
Cooperation Agreement
ELA-Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security
systems,
ELA Management Board Decision 26/2021, of 17/12/2021.
Cooperation Agreement
ELA-SOLVIT,
ELA Management Board Decision 18/2021, of 10/11/2021.
SWD(2018)68 final (Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority), p. 99.
The European Commission 2024-2029
European Commission (2015) The EU explained: Ten priorities for Europe --
ten priorities for europe-
NA0115476ENN.pdf
48
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0051.png
present, considering also the operational character of ELA, which does not allow for policy
making.
An important policy area with implications for labour mobility and ELA’s tasks is
digitalisation. The compliance of Member States with the Regulation on a single digital
gateway
165
is complementing and facilitating ELA’s support on providing digital tools as
well in providing information (see section 3.3 (p. 26) and section 4.1.1 (p. 30)).
Understanding the distribution of roles and achieving good collaboration with the
Commission services took some time.
166
It has been flagged by interviewees
167
that the
relationship varied (based on the volume of exchanges and the work between the parties)
depending on the Directorate-General with which ELA collaborated (DG EMPL, DG
GROW, DG MOVE, DG DIGIT, and DG HOME). Cooperation appeared to be easier in
areas which were characterised by less strictly predefined tasks.
A point of discussion concerns ELA’s role vis-à-vis third-country nationals, as some of
ELA’s activities are also relevant for migrant workers. Activities to support the recruitment
or labour market matching of third country nationals from outside the EU to companies
within the EU are not covered by the Founding Regulation. However, when third country
nationals are exposed to risks related to intra-EU mobility or posting, ELA can intervene.
For instance, problems occurring because of fraudulent forms of posting of third country
nationals can and have been addressed by ELA and have been revealed during CJIs. In
several areas of ELA’s work, including e.g. seasonal work or work on construction sites
third country nationals are frequently in problematic situations and subsequently ELA can
play a role in improving their situation.
Other concrete examples of ELA’s work are linked to the people fleeing Russia’s war of
aggression in Ukraine. In this context, ELA facilitated the development of the Talent Pool
Pilot through EURES, helping people fleeing the war in Ukraine make their profiles
available to potential employers across the EU. Additionally, ELA's analysis of labour
shortages provided input for the EU shortages list for the Talent Pool proposal, aimed at
attracting talent from third countries and adapting to Member States' evolving needs.
Support to third country nationals is a relevant part of ELA’s objective to assist Member
States and the Commission in the effective application of Union law related to labour
mobility across the Union and the coordination of social security systems. However, ELA
165
166
167
The Regulation was adopted in 2018 and Member States has to implement requirements by the end of
2023. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance
and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012
See Memorandum of Understanding between European Commission and ELA:
https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-04/decision-03-2022-mou-com.pdf
.
Annex V, p. 124/125 and Supporting Study, Annex VI. p. 142.
49
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0052.png
is different from other agencies and bodies which have a dedicated focus on criminal law
enforcement, immigration and border management or fundamental rights.
By working on its assigned tasks effectively, in full coherence with the EU’s legal
migration policies and the relevant legal framework concerning third country nationals and
without requiring a change of mandate, ELA can contribute to reduce labour exploitation
including of third country nationals within the EU. A contribution to the fight against
trafficking in human beings, as far as it involves labour exploitation, can thus be considered
a positive development of ELA’s activities.
Furthermore, requests towards ELA to ‘do more’ to reduce labour exploitation of third
country nationals do not fully take account of the operational possibilities of the Authority,
which has no executive power. It is within the practical possibilities of the Platform
Tackling Undeclared Work to e.g. develop recommendations concerning inspection-
intensity or to encourage mutual learning and peer learning dialogues that allow for more
effective and more efficient organisation of enforcement activities, thus allowing to use
available resources in the best possible way. Still, the work of the Platform Tackling
Undeclared Work, is focused on exchange of information, awareness raising within
administrations and mutual learning and as such less directly active in the operational
activities falling under ELA’s mandate as for instance the concerted and joint inspections.
ELA is also well-placed to improve the situation of mobile EU and migrant workers by
starting from particular problematic situations, thoroughly analysing the structures leading
to exploitative working conditions including for third country nationals or in specific
sectors. By sharing this analysis with the concerned Member States ELA can have a direct
positive impact towards fair working conditions for both mobile EU and migrant workers.
In cases where the analysis shows existing gaps in, or infringements of EU legislation,
ELA could inform the European Commission thereof.
2.
Coherence of mandate and activities with Commission / EU agencies/ EU
bodies
ELA's activities were largely complementary to those of other EU agencies. The majority
of ELA staff and Management Board and external stakeholders agreed that ELA’s
activities were coherent, in particular with Eurofound and EU-OSHA. Key topics of
Eurofound’s work concern employment and labour markets as well as anticipating and
managing change and working conditions and sustainable work, thus also looking at
imbalances in the labour market, however, without specific focus on labour mobility. EU-
OSHA and ELA share the concern for healthy working conditions, however, with a
different focus, so that no overlap was identified. A lesser potential for synergies was
identified with Cedefop and ETF due to their different focus areas
168
. ELA's operational
168
Annex V, p. 124/125 and Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 92.
50
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0053.png
nature complemented the research-oriented activities of other agencies, with synergies in
areas such as working conditions, employment, labour markets, occupational health and
safety.
Stakeholders and ELA-staff and Management Board most frequently identified Europol
and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation as the most relevant
other agencies
169
for ELA. This was also reflected in the responses from national labour
inspectorates, ministries, social partners and the Commission services. An example of an
emerging cooperation between EU-level agencies is the collaboration between Europol,
the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and ELA to fight labour exploitation.
ELA provided its contacts with labour inspectorates to contribute to the work of the other
agencies.
170
.
This collaboration also demonstrates that these agencies are already active and
complementary as regards third country nationals and labour exploitation.
In areas such as skills, AI, and research/studies, by leveraging the analysis and work
already done by other agencies (e.g. on skills needs and labour shortages by CEDEFOP
and Eurofound, or the support for accession countries provided by ETF), ELA avoided
overlaps even though some risk for duplication remains concerning skills forecasts and
labour shortages. Close cooperation on the programming documents between Agencies
and ELA and clear ‘steer’ provided by the Commission’s guidelines on the annual and
multi-annual programming (Article 24 of the Regulation) is meant to avoid overlaps and
ensure synergies in the respective areas. Beyond that, neither the supporting study nor the
recent evaluation of the four EU agencies Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA see a
risk of incoherence between these aforementioned agencies and ELA. Specifically as
regards the coherence between ELA and EU-OSHA, , the latter has no specific focus on
cross-border situations. Conversely, ELA has no direct competence on health and safety at
the workplace. In cases where activities of both agencies target the same audience, such as
in the campaign on seasonal work, cooperation was ensured. This campaign also showed
the very distinct focus of the activities of the respective agencies. The potential for a merger
of ELA with one of the aforementioned agencies is assessed as low, considering the very
specialised nature of ELA focusing on intra-EU labour mobility and social security
coordination.
171
169
170
171
Supporting study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.5, p. 57.
See e.g. the report prepared by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Six points for
workplace inspectors (2024),
https://fra.europa.eu/en/print/pdf/node/45503
SWD(2024)XX p. 46 and 67. – See also European Commission (2023), Study supporting the evaluation
of EU Agencies: Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA, p 197.
51
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0054.png
3.
Cooperation with other organisations
ELA and the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems
developed a Cooperation Agreement
172
, in particular concerning mediation cases involving
social security coordination. The agreement, mandated by Article 13(11) of the ELA
Regulation, aims to ensure good cooperation, coordinate activities, and avoid duplication
in mediation cases. During the evaluation period, the number of mediation cases and other
activities on social security coordination have been very limited.
The evaluation also addressed ELA's coherence with other relevant organisations and
stakeholders at the EU, international, and national levels. Complementarity with the
International Labour Organisation was identified, and ELA worked with the ILO with
respect to inspections and mobility, despite the absence of a formal framework. The
potential for improved cooperation was noted.
173
At the national level, ELA's activities were seen as complementary to those of other
organisations, agencies and stakeholders. ELA played a significant role in facilitating the
sharing of national experiences, and providing coordinated information, which contributed
to enhancing the capacities of various national authorities.
Figure 16:
Do you think ELA’s activities are complementary to those of other
organisations/agencies/stakeholders at national level? (n=179)
174
Source: Question 22 of the Online survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023)
4.2.
How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?
Considering that Member States remain responsible for the enforcement of EU legislation
in the area of intra-EU mobility, ELA made a difference by supporting EU coordination
172
173
174
The
Agreement
was adopted by the Management Board on 17 December 2021, signed by both parties
in December 2021 and entered into force on 1 June 2022.
Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.5. p. 58.
Activation: If answered “National Ministry”, “National labour inspectorate”, “Social security
coordination organisation”, “Social partner”, “National public employment service”, “Other national
body” in Q1
52
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0055.png
and cooperation in an area where otherwise cooperation would merely take place on a bi-
or limited multilateral basis without the involvement of all Member States. Such
uncoordinated situation would require in the long run more resources and is less
systematic, less flexible, less transparent and more complex than the coordination provided
by a central ‘hub’ currently provided by ELA. Practical experience indeed showed
weaknesses concerning the consistent and effective enforcement of rules in cross-border
situations.
175
The survey with representatives of ELA stakeholders highlighted that ELA was best placed
to facilitate the cooperation and acceleration of exchange of information on labour mobility
between Member States, and to support their effective compliance with cooperation
obligations.
Figure 17: To what extent is an organisation like ELA, acting at EU level, best
placed to do/achieve the following? n=205
Source: Survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023)
When respondents were asked to elaborate on their answers, certain views emerged more
frequently, particularly from social partners and EU institutions/agencies. While
information activities were deemed useful, they should not be the main focus. Respondents
suggested that national campaigns are more effective for providing information to
individuals, and that the ELA contribution in this area might be limited. They noted that
175
See COM(2018)131 final,
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0131
p. 1-3.
53
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0056.png
ELA is not fully reaching its potential due to its restricted mandate and suggested it needs
more autonomy, such as the ability to initiate inspections. Additionally, ELA's analysis
and risk assessment work was criticized for not meeting standards, offering only basic
information already known by public authorities.
Hence, ELA’s value added comes therefore from its abilities to coordinate on questions
and issues concerning intra-EU labour mobility and social security coordination. Analysis,
interviews with experts as well as surveys confirm this. The value added of ELA in this
respect has not been put in question by respondents in the surveys and interviews.
176
Based on the input from the public consultation, rights of workers in the context of cross-
border labour mobility (77%, i.e. 94 out of 122 responses), posting of workers (71%, i.e.
87 out of 122), and tackling of undeclared work (59%, i.e. 73 out of 122) were the areas
where most respondents indicated that ELA’s work led to additional value/benefits
compared to what could have been expected from Member States’ bodies alone, either to
a great or to a moderate extent.
177
ELA acts as focal point for activities concerning the implementation of EU legislation in
the areas of labour mobility and social security coordination with a ‘hands on’ operational
approach, the introduction of CJIs and the in-depth work on posting being first steps in that
direction.
178
ELA’s stakeholders (national administrations as well as social partners) consistently
acknowledge that ELA has allowed for improved networking and knowledge sharing; trust
and coordination among national administrations have improved; training and capacity
building activities were appreciated.
179
So far one Member State committed to send cost-free SNEs
180
to ELA, which shows that
the added value of the Authority is recognised and it is considered worthwhile to invest in
its activities (process effect).
The analysis as well as the surveys, however, also show that ELA still has difficulties to
fully deliver on its added value. As an example, high quality and up-to-date information
on labour mobility needs to be coordinated at Union level in order to ensure a consistent,
clear, and efficient approach
181
, yet stakeholders still find information concerning rights
176
177
178
179
180
181
Supporting study, Section 4.3.6.
Supporting Study, Section 4.2.1.
Annex V, p.123 and Annex IV (Benefits), see also Supporting Study, p. 107.
Annex V, p. 124.
Cost-free SNE meaning that wage and expatriation allowance etc. are paid by the sending country,
whereas ELA only pays for expenses directly linked to the workplace (office, IT equipment, travel in
case of missions etc).
COM(2018)131 final (Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council,
establishing
a
European
Labour
Authority),
p.
5.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0131.
54
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0057.png
and obligations fragmented and not sufficiently useful. ELA operates in a highly complex
environment where national and EU level competences are balanced in a way that solutions
are often not easy to achieve. The creation of EU added value in this area inevitably takes
time.
4.3.
Is the intervention still relevant?
Around 10.1 million European citizens of working age (20-64) lived in 2023 in a European
country other than their country of citizenship. This corresponds to 3.8% of the respective
population in the European Union, an overall low share of the population. With the green,
digital and demographic transitions, Member States are faced with labour shortages and
major economic restructuring. Cross-border labour mobility is one of the means to address
these challenges, including by alleviating regional labour market imbalances
182
. The
possibility for employers to temporarily send employees to another Member State to
provide services, without distorting the market and while protecting the rights of workers,
as provided by the posting rules, contributes to an efficient use of resources. Although
there is a clear need to enhance fair labour mobility and posting to sustain European
competitiveness in the longer term
183
, the overall figures for cross-border mobility and
postings remained low. Nevertheless, they increased slowly in the medium term despite
the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 18).
Figure 18: Labour mobility and cross-border transfer of social security payments
(2019 and 2023)
2019
184
Total (EU-28)
13 million
(of which 3 million with UK)
186
1.5 million
4.6 million
5.5 million
2023
185
EU-27
10.1 million
1.83 million
5.5 million
6.18 million
(2022)
Working age movers
(20-64 years)
Cross-border workers
Postings
Transferred
Pensions
187
182
183
184
185
186
187
https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/publications/labour-shortages-and-surpluses-europe-2023
As underlined in the Draghi report ‘A competitiveness strategy for Europe’ presented in September
2024.
Intra-EU
labour
Mobility
report
2020
-
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1/language-enhttps://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Intra-EU labour Mobility report 2024 (upcoming) European Commission (2025), Annual Report on
Intra-EU labour Mobility – Edition 2024.
Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2024 - European
Commission
2.64 million movers towards the UK and approx. 395 000 UK-citizens in the EU.
See
cross-border
pensions,
statistical
database
2016-20222:
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27441&langId=en
55
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0058.png
Family benefits
188
0.76 million
1.2 million
(2022)
A 2023 report published by the European Parliament estimates, that in 2020 the EU added
value – in terms of boosting the collective GDP – generated by free movement of workers
to the main destination countries was in the order of EUR 104 billion. Continued attention
to the concerns of mobile workers, including well-functioning social security coordination,
i.e. the topics directly in the competence of ELA, were considered of high importance.
189
However, barriers to mobility persist, in the form of limited access to information, social
security challenges and the risk of social dumping or labour exploitation.
190
Since ELA was
established, the EU has introduced further policies to address these obstacles, including
digital tools like the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) to further
reduce administrative burdens, making social security coordination more efficient. This
requires continued support by an organisation monitoring and accompanying their
implementation and functioning at the EU-level, a task belonging to ELA’s competences.
The objective of ELA to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the EU and to
assist Member States and the Commission in the coordination of social security systems
within the Union
191
remains relevant and important. A perception also shared by European
citizens.
192
The continued relevance of contributing to fair mobility was highlighted at various
occasions throughout the last five years: during the pandemic the vulnerability of but also
the importance of seasonal workers to ensure good food-supplies was an important topic.
A recent study
193
which analyses the situation of posted workers provides the underpinning
of these findings. The strikes organised by truck drivers in 2023
194
also demonstrated that
efforts are still needed to obtain fair labour mobility and that some companies exploit
enforcement gaps resulting from a lack of coordination between national systems in a
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
Export
of
family
benefits,
number
of
family
members
involved.
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27442&langId=en
European Parliament (2023), Increasing European added value in an age of global challenges, Mapping
the cost of non-Europe (2022-2032), p. 222.
EPRS_STU(2023)734690_EN.pdf (europa.eu)
Intra-EU
labour
mobility
report
2022
-
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/00ed7c30-dd96-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, Article 2
European Commission (2024), Special Eurobarometer (546) on Social Europe; carried out among EU
citizens in 2024, p. 10. (Social
Europe - April 2024 - - Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu))
European Commission (2024), Study supporting the Monitoring of the Posting of Workers Directive
2018/957/EC
and
of
the
Enforcement
Directive
2014/67&EU:
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27555&langId=en
Several strike actions of truckers (mainly from third countries), driving on behalf of a EU companies (in
particular the Polish freight company Mazur was identified) in western Europe (mainly Germany). Most
public attention was with a strike in Graefenhausen.
Lkw-Fahrer-Streik an A5 in Gräfenhausen: "Das ist
doch kein Leben" | hessenschau.de | Wirtschaft
56
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0059.png
fraudulent way. A Eurobarometer survey
195
confirmed the continued relevance of ELA’s
specific objective to facilitate access to information on rights and obligations regarding
labour mobility. Nearly half (48%) the respondents considered that working abroad would
help them to do their job better, and nearly four in ten (39%) would look abroad for
improved job opportunities. When considering difficulties that were mentioned, having to
deal with cumbersome and paper-based procedures to prove social security coverage
entitlements (4%) were the most frequently mentioned difficulties, followed by having
insufficient awareness of the EU rules and their rights (3%).
196
While the anecdotal evidence presented above only provide examples to demonstrate the
persistence of challenges to cross-border mobility they show that EU action continues to
be needed. While the public consultation confirmed that ELA’s activities have been highly
relevant to ensure workers’ rights in cross-border situations, it is not possible at this stage
to draw conclusions on whether ELA had a measurable impact on the reduction of the
overall number or seriousness of problems. This is also due to the fact that ELA has so far
not invested in a solid stocktaking of the size and scope of problems in its area of
competence. Furthermore, awareness and reporting of problems have likely increased due
to the setting up ELA.
The public consultation carried out as part of this evaluation also indicated that ELA's work
was considered highly relevant for workers' rights in cross-border labour mobility. Posting
of workers and tackling undeclared work were also considered relevant areas. EURES was
marked as a relevant area, but it is noteworthy that at the same time 44% of respondents
answered with ‘do not know’. This shows that while EURES is supposed to be an
instrument directly at the service of mobile citizens, there is still a lack of awareness of it.
The areas of ‘social legislation in road transport’ and social security coordination were
identified areas of somewhat less relevance which could possibly be due to the technical
nature of these areas and by the low level of activities on social security coordination
during the evaluation period. The mediation function is a specific activity currently limited
to Member States’ authorities in the area of social security coordination and therefore not
widely known among those that are not involved in that matter
197
Nevertheless. the low
number of mediation cases carried out during the evaluation period raises the question how
relevant this activity is.
EBS 528 (2022) “Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic – December 2022 – Eurobarometer survey
(europa.eu)”. This trust in the advantages of labour mobility merits the support provided by EURES.
196
Special Eurobarometer (546) on Social Europe carried out among EU citizens in 2024.
(https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3187), p. 54.
197
More than half of respondents indicated that they did not know about this aspect (Figure 19).
195
57
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0060.png
Figure 19: To what extent do you believe that the work of ELA has been relevant
to the following areas? (N=122)
Source: Public Consultation (2023)
In terms of sectors covered by the activities of ELA, the focus was put during the evaluation
period on sectors that fall within its mandate and have the highest levels of labour mobility:
road transport
198
, seasonal work, and construction. From that perspective, the choice of
sectors to be covered by the activities was relevant. However, there were requests for ELA
to address additional sectors, including by extending the mandate. These requests
concerned particularly the aviation and inland waterway sectors
199
. The scope of ELA's
activities may encompass these sectors, provided that the matters tackled are within the
boundaries of the directives and regulations under ELA's mandate (e.g. posting of workers
and social security coordination).
There is a broad consensus across all stakeholders’ groups, that the digital transition,
migration from outside the EU, and labour and skills shortages trends can be expected to
further impact ELA's work.
200
During the evaluation period, ELA demonstrated the
relevance of its mandate as regards digitalisation in support of labour mobility by
organising IMI-PROVE and well attended tech conferences (see section 3.2). With the
digitalisation becoming increasingly important, including in the public sector
201
, the
support provided by ELA to Member States through training and exchanging of good
practices remains relevant. It can also be expected that the nature of ELAs activities to
fulfil its objective to facilitate access to information will evolve and rely increasingly on
the use of AI and algorithmic management. Considering that access to information, its
198
199
200
201
In line with the 2020 Commission’s Mobility Package, ELA published in 2022 a
Framework for action
in road transport.
Supporting Study, Annex VI (Stakeholder consultation report (Staff Survey))
Annex V, p. 122.
Cf Europe’s digital decade target to have 100% of public services online by 2030:
Europe’s digital
decade: 2030 targets | European Commission
58
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0061.png
content and the use of these instruments will still need to be managed, ELAs mandate in
this area remains relevant. Specifically, for EURES, the introduction of AI will profoundly
alter the job search and recruitment process
202
by enabling the EURES network
personalised job recommender and matching, automated candidate screening and
providing predictive analytics. ELAs mandate remains relevant in accompanying these
changes.
Considering migration from outside the EU, ELA carried out activities regarding people
fleeing Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.
203
These activities cannot be considered very
relevant since largely redundant compared to activities undertaken by the Commission and
other agencies
204
.
As regards labour and skills shortages, the relevance and coherence of this ELA activity
can be questioned given the lack of focus on labour mobility aspects. The general issue of
labour and skills shortages falls rather within the mandates of Eurofound
205
and Cedefop
206
.
Nevertheless, the ongoing challenge of labour shortages will continue to require support
for labour mobility to fill in some of these shortages. This underlines the relevance of ELAs
mandate on this aspect, also in future.
For some stakeholders (trade unions, EP) the relevance of ELA would be increased by
giving it direct enforcement powers. This would, in their view, enhance the effective
application and enforcement of Union law related to labour mobility and thus reduce unfair
or exploitative treatment of workers in cross-border situations. Nevertheless, the absence
of enforcement powers is a direct consequence of the subsidiarity principle enshrined in
the Treaties of the European Union and its interpretation in the area of labour and social
affairs.
207
202
203
204
205
206
207
See e.g.
How AI can improve the talent acquisition process - European Union
Support for people fleeing from Ukraine | European Labour Authority
EU support for Ukraine | European Union
One of Eurofound’s objectives is to provide support to devising employment policies (Article 1 of
Regulation (EU) 2019/127)
One of Cedefop’s tasks is to analyse labour market trends in relation to skills (Article 2 of Regulation
(EU) 2019/218)
This is similar to
Europol
and
Eurojust
that also provide support to Member States national authorities.
As an example, the Europol webpage informs the public, that “The Agency supports investigations
initiated by Member States, though Europol officers never arrest citizens or instigate investigations.”
59
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
5.
W
HAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
?
5.1.
Conclusions
During the period under evaluation, ELA managed to finalise its organisational set-up and
started delivering on the objectives set out in its founding regulation and programming
documents. ELA's work on intra-EU labour mobility and social security coordination was
generally coherent with that of other EU entities, cooperation and information exchange
was facilitated.
Despite calls made by the Commission in the respective opinions on the draft single
programming documents, ELA thus far did not develop a strategic approach for the
accomplishment of its objectives. In the absence of such strategy and since ELA has not
set up a comprehensive and outcome-oriented monitoring system covering all activities
and including KPIs, targets and SMART objectives, a definite overall assessment of ELAs
performance of its tasks during the evaluation period is difficult. Progress towards ELA’s
specific objectives can, in the absence of result indicators, only be approximated indirectly.
While this evaluation may in several respects have more the character of a progress report,
it aims to contribute to a better evidence base for the next evaluation.
Stakeholder feedback suggests that the delivered outputs were used by relevant
stakeholders. It also pointed to insufficient interaction with specific stakeholders (e.g.
employers) and lack of targeting. Altogether, the evaluation points to room for
improvement in the implementation of specific activities and when it comes to the
coordination between the specific activities. No major issues could be identified regarding
the governance structure of ELA (consisting of a Management Board and a stakeholder
group) even though the high frequency of meetings of the Management Board seems to
point to a hybrid approach on the role of the Board between high-level decision making
and supervisory activities providing guidance to the agency’s management.
Effectiveness
As regards the effectiveness of activities under the four specific objectives, the following
can be noted:
1) Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations regarding labour mobility
across the Union as well as relevant to services.
The
campaigns
launched by ELA (#EU4FairWork; #Rights4AllSeasons,
#Road2FairTransport, #EU4FairConstruction) received a significant audience measured
by the number of clicks and views. No conclusions on the effectiveness of these campaigns
can be drawn in the absence of outcome related indicators or indications whether the
campaigns reached the right audience and increased their knowledge. Effectiveness seems
to have been negatively affected by insufficiencies in timing and targeting of
60
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0063.png
communication by ELA and reluctance by partners to provide and disseminate information
within the deadlines requested by ELA.
Despite ongoing efforts, the
information
concerning rights and obligations for mobile
workers and employers remains fragmented across various sources at EU and national
level. ELAs
translation
facility was welcomed, in particular by national authorities
208
.
In the start-up phase, the transfer process of
EURES-ECO
from the Commission to ELA
went smoothly. The overall performance was however affected by different priorities
between ELA and the EURES network. Even though ELA discontinued the system
monitoring job placements facilitated through the EURES portal or staff, based on the
additional evidence gathered it can be noted that the effectiveness of the EURES declined,
counted in the number of job placements. Stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with
ELA’s focus, pointing out that the divided responsibilities and differing priorities led to a
decrease in the effectiveness of EURES activities. They also criticized ELA for spreading
its efforts too thin, which weakened its ability to fully support key EURES functions.
Furthermore, ELA’s diverging views on the delimitation of responsibilities between ELA
and Commission and on the interpretation of key tasks, put a strain on the coherence of
ELAs activities with those of the Commission.
2) Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of
relevant Union law across the Union and including facilitating concerted and joint
inspections.
Together with information campaigns, ELA has put a priority on the organisation of
concerted and joint inspections.
The number of these inspections increased significantly
and ELA managed to involve 25 Member States by the end of 2023. No conclusion can
however be drawn on the effectiveness of CJIs, in the absence of a relevant KPI and related
measurement of their impact. To make such an assessment, a useful information would be
the change of behaviour in the inspected company after the initial inspection, i.e. how many
of the violations detected in the initial inspection still exist in a follow-up inspection 6 or
12 months later.
Analysis and risk assessment
activities were given a lower priority and there were only
few outputs produced. Where those activities were carried out, a lack of coordination or
cooperation between ELA’s analytical efforts and the organisation of CJIs could be noted,
partially due to the absence of (timely) information provided by Member States and data
protection concerns.
Cooperation and exchange between Member States national authorities
has been
effectively and smoothly facilitated by ELA
209
. The high proportion of SNEs including the
208
209
This could represent a certain bias considering that the costs for translations were now incurred by ELA
and not by national authorities.
It should be noted however that during the period under evaluation support to social security
coordination was not yet fully developed.
61
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0064.png
NLOs is a strength of ELA, allowing it to establish a network with and between national
authorities leading to more direct and quicker information exchange between ELA and the
national authorities. The high proportion of SNEs also creates challenges in particular in
combination with the high level of outsourcing. This is important both for maintaining and
enhancing expertise within the organization
210
and because SNEs are not allowed to engage
in financial management.
ELA started
capacity building activities,
including in support of
digital tools
such as the
internal market information system (IMI) for road transport. These activities have been
appreciated by Member States authorities. During the evaluation period, ELA did not yet
extend capacity building activities to digital tools in the area of social security
coordination
211
.
3) Mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross-border disputes between Member
States
While guidelines and organisational arrangements were put in place, the use of the
mediation function
of ELA remained low and limited to social security coordination.
Considering that by the end of 2023 only four mediation cases reached ELA, of which 3
were prematurely closed and 1 successfully finalised, no conclusions can be drawn on the
effectiveness of this activity.
Nevertheless, in the interviews, some stakeholders highlighted the need for ELA to focus
on a limited number of essential tasks for efficiency, noting that resources were being
allocated to areas like the mediation function with low demand and labour market analysis
beyond direct labour mobility, which were not essential for a cost-effective and targeted
operation.
4)
Support cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work.
The transfer of the European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work into ELA did not create
difficulties, but making the Platform part of the Enforcement and Analysis Unit has
hampered the development of synergies with other ELA activities. This negatively affected
the effectiveness of the Platform’s activities.
Efficiency
The absence of an adequate monitoring system did not allow for a solid assessment of the
cost-effectiveness of ELA’s operations. During the evaluation period, ELA managed to
210
211
SNEs working for a limited period in ELA and with outsourcing may imply that less knowledge is built
within the organisation itself.
It should be noted however that ELA adopted in November 2023 its capacity building strategy 2024 –
2030 covering the programmes IMI-PROVE (launched in 2022), Posting 360, Transport Support (both
launched in 2023) and PROGRESS (launched in 2024).
62
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0065.png
reach financial autonomy, but still with a low level of budget execution
212
. Moreover, while
all envisaged activities were being developed, they appear to be insufficiently mutually
integrated, negatively impacting the Authority’s efficiency. Efficiency gains could be
observed in the organisation of translations. Further potential for such gains was identified
for the organisation of CJIs and meetings, even though the actual savings that could be
obtained from these gains could not be determined. It appears that the efficiency of EURES
decreased during the evaluation period, considering the increasing cost of the activity
compared to the lower number of job placements.
Coherence
ELA’s mandate and activities were found to be coherent and complementary to those of
other EU entities, international organisations, and national stakeholders. No significant
overlaps were identified, underscoring ELA’s distinct role within the EU framework. ELA
progressively enhanced the delivery of activities and outputs as set out in the respective
work programmes which in turn reflected EU policies and priorities, including those
revised or enacted during the evaluation period (e.g. the Mobility Package I).
EU added value
ELA has successfully facilitated the cooperation between national authorities on joint
inspections and has run information campaigns reaching many citizens. ELA ensured EU
level cooperation and coordination between all Member States in an area where otherwise
relations would only be established on a bilateral basis or with the involvement of a limited
number of Member States.
By centralising these activities, ELA has addressed a previously unmet need for
operational support in implementing EU policies related to EU labour mobility. However,
beyond these achievements, there remains room for improvement in most areas of activity
(see effectiveness and lessons learned).
Relevance
ELAs objectives and activities remain overall relevant, including in view of trends in EU
labour mobility and its economic benefits, the evolving policy framework, aiming at better
and more efficient implementation of rules, and digitalisation. However, some areas were
considered of lesser relevance, most prominently the mediation function and some
stakeholders (e.g. trade unions represented in ELA’s governance structure) stressed the
need for ELA to focus on a more limited number of tasks to ensure efficiency. For EURES
it is expected that AI supported matching will impact its operation.
Despite calls for the strengthening of ELAs mandate, the evaluation does not point to a
pressing need for the revision of the mandate. Still, some potential areas for improvement,
212
The budget absorption rate consistently exceeded 95% except in 2019, but payment appropriations were
low with under 25% paid annually until 2022, when the rate improved to 59%, and further to 74% in
2023.
63
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
possibly needing a change of the Founding Regulation, could concern competences to
handle personal data, a strengthened ability to ask Member States for cooperation around
CJIs and more influence on the appointment of NLOs.
5.2.
Lessons learned
1. An evaluation of the performance of ELA in line with Article 40 of the Founding
Regulation relies on the availability of clear objectives, performance indicators
including targets and the measurement of these that was not available for the
evaluation period. This resulted in particular in difficulties assessing the cost
effectiveness of ELAs activities. ELA could thus improve its
monitoring system.
This could be achieved by:
(i) defining SMART objectives at the level of the general objective as well as at
the levels of specific and operational objectives;
(ii) identifying meaningful KPIs to measure achievements;
(iii) systematically setting targets for all KPIs; and
(vi) better monitoring of services / outputs use and the effects at national level.
(Section 4.1.1.1.)
To develop an effective monitoring system, it is essential to distinguish between
activities (e.g. meetings and social media posts) and objectives (e.g. cross-border
recruitments, resolving irregular employment cases). Furthermore, an intervention
logic should be underpinned with an operational understanding of 'fair labour
mobility' and SMART objectives; for example, beyond assessing stakeholder
satisfaction with information accessibility, ELA could create indicators to measure
the time and effort required for stakeholders to obtain necessary information or to
measure the impact of activities. (see also points 3 and 5 below).
2. Besides providing the necessary input for future evaluation of the agency, such a
monitoring system could support
enhanced strategic management
by the
agency’s leadership, providing steer and direction to the organisation and
increasing its overall performance. A particular attention could be paid to provide
meaningful objectives in areas that were less developed thus far (i.e. analysis/risk
assessment, mediation), to mainstreaming digitalisation efforts and to enhanced
cooperation and coherence within the organisation and with other organisations, in
particular EU agencies. To fully develop and benefit from better coordination and
synergies between activities, the organisational structure might need to be revised.
(Section 4.1.1.1.)
3. A clear example of the potential benefits of enhanced internal coordination and
coherence concerns the
concerted and joint inspections (CJIs) and analysis/risk
assessment
activities. While the analysis/risk assessment could help to better target
the inspections, the outcomes of the CJIs could in turn feed into the analysis, help
identifying systematic problems and provide input for training courses and capacity
building. Reporting from inspections could be provided by Member States within
a limited timeframe, even if some follow-up to CJIs might still be ongoing. A
clarification on ELAs position as regards data protection and privacy could help
64
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0067.png
gathering national data. Pending the input by Member States, ELA could envisage
carrying out surveys to obtain more immediate feedback on the support provided.
(Section 4.1.1.3.). Relevant indicators that would be helpful could be e.g. the
number of inspections initiated by the ELA’s analysis/risk assessment, benefits
generated by joint inspections (e.g. improved workers’ situation, collected/
recovered taxes and/or social security contributions) and other information about
cases on cross-border fines.
4. ELAs activities, building on the work by its information working group and with
the involvement of social partners, could be further intensified to increase
usefulness and targeting (e.g. specific sectors), addressing the persistent
fragmentation at both EU and national level of
information
on the rights and
obligations of mobile workers and employers. (Section 4.1.1.2) ELA could further
explore efficiency gains by using digital tools (machine translation) for its
Translation Facility. (Section 4.1.2.1)
5. Regarding
information campaigns,
ELA could enhance the measurement of their
impact and use. The themes (e.g. sector) for such campaigns should be based on a
thorough analysis and could facilitate the definition of the precise objectives and
target groups of such information campaigns. Relevant indicators that would be
helpful could be e.g. requests by employers and workers for additional information
about rights and obligations of specific groups of mobile workers targeted by the
campaign.
6. While ELA has already established a first strategy for
capacity building,
it could
be further clarified whether this strategy will be limited to the mentioned
programmes
213
or whether and to which extent further efforts are to be expected.
7. ELA could increase its efforts to ensure
EURES
becomes fully part of its activities
and focuses its analytical work on labour mobility. At the same time ELA could
enhance the provision of adequate services to the EURES network enabling it to
offer services to jobseekers and employers making optimal use of digital tools.
ELA could examine how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EURES,
the overall management of EURES coordination group and it could be explored
how to come to a clearer division of tasks and responsibilities between the
Commission services and ELA, especially in relation to IT tools (EURES portal)
and legal interpretation of different aspects of the EURES Regulation (Section
4.1.1.2.). When it comes to the increased use of digital tools such as algorithmic
management, ELA by its management of the European Coordination Office of
EURES, could play a central role in identifying and addressing related risks such
as potential job displacement, biased algorithms, and loss of human interaction and
213
IMI-PROVE, Posting 360, Transport Support and PROGRESS
65
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
empathy in the recruitment process. ELA could further support the use and
development of digital tools by the Member States.
8. The very limited use of ELA’s
mediation function
requires a better understanding
of its potential in terms of number of cases that could be presented. A discussion
with Member States could start with a further exploration of the underlying reasons
for the limited use of this function and, building upon that, the identification of
options to allow ELA to deliver on this task in a cost-effective way. (Section
4.1.1.4.)
9. ELA could re-examine the role of the
European Platform Tackling Undeclared
Work
and the place it occupies in the organisation. A key question in this regard
is whether the Platform can be given a more strategic role and how it could be better
integrated with other activities of the Authority, such as the working group on
inspections. (Section 4.1.1.5)
10. ELA could still improve efficiency in the organisation of its meetings and in its use
of
resources
in general, both financial and human. As to the latter, ELA could
further explore the best ways to achieve an appropriate balance between developing
in-house expertise and relying on external contractors. Furthermore, establishing a
robust administrative framework is crucial for enhancing budget and financial
management (especially in the context of budgetary execution), procedural
efficiency, and HR management. This includes formalizing written procedures and
potentially adopting ISO processes to ensure streamlined operations and strategic
resource allocation. The further stabilisation of ELA staff should ensure as ELA
has high share of SNEs. The possibility to convert SNEs into temporary agents
could help in addressing this challenge (Section 4.1.2.2.).
11. Carrying out and
delivering on the objectives foreseen under the current
mandate
could continue to be the focus of the agency as the evaluation points to
room for improvement as regards the performance of the agency based on the
current mandate and objectives. At the same time, it notes certain limitations in the
mandate that could affect ELA’s potential. In case a change to the mandate or scope
of activities of the agency were to be considered, a thorough analysis of the need
for such modification, the costs and benefits and possible side-effects could be
required. Some targeted changes could be explored to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of ELA’s work and could concern competences to handle personal
data, a strengthened ability to ask Member States for cooperation around CJIs,
increased information provision, ELA’s role vis-à-vis third country nationals,
ELA’s responsibilities with regard to the development of EURES, and the
conversion of a number of SNEs into permanent staff. (Section 4.3.)
66
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0069.png
A
NNEX
I.
P
ROCEDURAL
I
NFORMATION
Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references
The evaluation was led by the Directorate-General for Employment, Inclusion and Social
Affairs, with a Decide planning reference PLAN/2023/2058.
Organisation and timing
An
Inter-service Steering Group
(ISG) was set up, coordinated by the Directorate-General
for Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs (represented by staff from EMPL E.1, EMPL
E.2, EMPL C3, EMPL G5), and Commission services including the Secretariat General, and
the Directorate-Generals for : Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE); Internal Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW); Human Resources and Security (DG HR); Budget
(DG BUDG); Communication (DG COMM); the Directorate-General for Migration and Home
Affairs (HOME) was added to the Inter-service Steering Group later. It has been provided the
opportunity to comment on the final report of the supporting study as well as the evaluation and
to participate in the 6
th
meeting of the ISG, taking place on 26 September 2024.
The ISG also acted as steering group for the
supporting study
supporting the evaluation, which
was carried out by Ramboll. Contract VC/2023/0127 was awarded after reopening of
competition (tender VT/2022/057) within the multiple framework contract VC/2021/0336).
The contract VC/2023/0127 started on 02.05.2023. The first draft final report was submitted by
the contractor on 26.02.2024. The draft was discussed in the inter-service steering group on
19.03.2024. Several iterations of the draft final report followed on: 26.04.2024, 28.06.2024 and
27.09.2024. The inter-service steering group provided the last set of comments on the draft final
report by 19.07.2024 and the contractor delivered the revised final report on 27.09.2024, along
with the agreed annexes (including an annex on the stakeholder consultation).
The
call for evidence
published on 06.10.2023 explained the context, purpose and scope of the
evaluation and informed stakeholders that an external evaluation study was being carried out,
supported by a public consultation. The
public consultation
was open for 12 weeks from
06.10.2023 to 05.01.2024. The factual summary was published on 22.02.2024.
Targeted
consultations
were carried out mainly within Q3 and Q4 2023. See Annex V for further details
on the stakeholder consultations carried out.
Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines
All Better Regulation requirements were fulfilled.
Consultation of the RSB (if applicable)
The evaluation was selected for the scrutiny of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The evaluation
staff working document was discussed at the meeting on 13 November 2024. The Regulatory
Scrutiny Board issued a negative opinion on 15 November 2025. Table 2 below shows how this
report took into account the RSB comments before resubmission. The revised version of the
document was sent to the RSB on xx January 2025.
67
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0070.png
Evidence, sources and quality
The evaluation was based on the evidence collection and analysis carried out by external experts
(contract with Ramboll to carry out the supporting study, see above).
Annex II provides additional information on the methodological approach taken. To ensure
quality, the ISG provided feedback throughout all steps of the evaluation process, and the
European Labour Authority was given the opportunity to comment on the supporting study to
ensure accuracy of the factual information and data.
Table 1: Chronological overview of the evidence collection process
Date
09.12.2022
06/02/2023
03/03/2023
02.05.2023
15.05.2023
15.06.2023
Type of activity
ISG meeting to discuss the Tender specifications
Launch Request for services
Offers received
Signature of Contract
ISG meeting: kick-off meeting with contractor
ISG Meeting: Inception report of supporting study
and discussion about the consultation strategy and
public consultation
Publication of Call for Evidence and Public
consultation
ISG Meeting: Interim report of supporting study
Targeted consultations
Draft final report
ISG meeting: draft final report supporting study
Revised draft final supporting study report
ISG meeting on the draft Staff Working Document
Receipt of final version of supporting study
06.10.2023 – 05.01.2024
04.12.2023
Q3-Q4.2023
26.02.2024
19.03.2024
26.04.2024
26.09.2024
27.09.2024
68
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0071.png
Table 2: How RSB comments have been addressed
Opinion (RSB comments)
How and where comments have been
addressed
•
The SWD has been significantly revised to
take on board the RSB comments contained
in the 15 November opinion and in the
quality checklist received from the RSB on
08 November. See below the main changes
to address the points to improve:
The Board notes the additional information
provided and commitments to make changes
to the report.
However, the Board gives a negative opinion
because the report contains the following
serious shortcomings:
(1) The report does not adequately explain
how the performance of the ELA can be
•
It might be noted that, while the absence of
assessed given the lack of clear objectives
appropriate performance indicators indeed
and appropriate performance indicators. It
creates problems, it is an issue which
does not assess ELA’s contribution to fair
cannot be fixed with the evaluation. The
labour mobility across EU.
Commission will, however, continue to use
(2) The analysis is not clear about the serious
its role in the management board and other
limitations of the evidence and its robustness,
bodies to urge ELA to make significant
and the actions needed to remedy this.
improvements. All this is better clarified in
(3) The conclusions do not accurately reflect
the revised version, including the
the critical findings of the analysis. The
limitations of the evaluation.
lessons learned do not adequately present
•
While the absence of performance
operational suggestions for improvement.
indicators and the weaknesses in strategic
management are key weaknesses, the
evidence found is still good enough to
arrive at conclusions and lessons learned,
which indicate that missing performance
indicators are not the only area in which
ELA can improve.
•
A more careful and consistent wording of
conclusions and lessons learned is
provided.
What to improve:
•
To clarify further the purpose and scope of
the intervention and the need to establish
(1)
The report should clearly explain the
ELA, including its targeted role to solve the
purpose and scope of the intervention, the
identified problems, Section 2.1. was
underlying needs that necessitated the setting
substantially redrafted explaining better the
up of ELA, and how the ELA was envisioned
context and the actions taken.
to contribute to solving the identified
problems. The report should analyse the
•
Additional details on how the EU labour
evolution of the nature and magnitude of the
market, including fair labour mobility,
problems, taking account of the key
evolved since the establishment of ELA
developments in the functioning of the
were further developed in particular in
European labour market since establishment
Sections 2.1 and 3.3.
of ELA relevant to this evaluation.
69
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0072.png
(2)
Given that the evidence, as indicated in
•
Specific caveats on the data limitations
the report, is limited and in many cases
were introduced in Sections 1, 4.1.1. and
insufficiently robust, the report should
4.1.2.
discuss this more explicitly. When using the
•
For EURES, additional data is presented
staff survey, or consultations with the
for the matching process, for the years
national agencies that the ELA coordinates,
2021-2022, based on the EURES
or ELA’s reports, the report should clearly
Performance Measurement System. This is
address potential stakeholder bias. The report
reflected mostly in the Effectiveness
should consider whether further evidence
(Section 4.1.1) and Efficiency (Section
could be collected (for example, from
4.1.2.).
EURES).
(3)
The report should clarify the cost-
•
Given that the compulsory Annex IV -
effectiveness analysis. Given that at present
provides and overview of costs and benefits
it seems that the analysis is based solely on
the relevant elements from Annex VII were
stakeholder perceptions regarding the
adjusted and transferred to the main text.
usefulness and satisfaction with ELA’s tasks,
•
Section 4.1.2. Efficiency was amended to
lacking a cost element, the relevant parts of
reflect the existing caveats of the process
the report, including Annex VII, should be
(lack of monitoring, lack of KPIs, no
revised to avoid confusion. Any statements
granularity of data). This was further
of “positive”, “negative” or “inconclusive”
aligned with the Cost-Effectiveness
efficiency should be underpinned by the
sections (methodology and limitations) in
analysis.
Annex II.
•
Table 1 from the previous Annex VII, was
moved to the main text Section 2.1. to
highlight the link between ELA’s main
tasks and key activities.
•
Section 4.1.2. Efficiency was further
consolidated with the existing cost
developments and intended effects in terms
of the developed tasked (information,
EURES, inspections etc). Additional
figures on EURES were also provided.
•
The challenges presented in the Table 2 of
the former Annex VII were incorporated in
Section 4.1.1. and Section 4.1.2.
(4)
The report should examine the coherence
•
To clarify the coherence between ELA’s
between the ELA's activities and relevant
activities
and
relevant
legislation
legislation revised or enacted during the
implemented during the reference period
evaluation period (for example the Single
we added additional arguments in Sections
Digital Gateway).
4.1.1. and 4.1.3.
•
These amendments detail how ELA’s
activities focused on support for the
Member States with the enforcement of the
revised Posting of Workers Directive, the
social aspects of the Mobility Package for
70
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0073.png
the road transport and also contributed to
the implementation of the Single Digital
Gateway Regulation.
(5)
External factors such as digitisation
•
Section 3.3 was further developed to
developments, the changing demography, the
include more details on the external factors
revision of the Regulation on Coordination of
that were identified in the intervention.
Social Security Systems etc. should be
•
The analytical chapter (4) and in particular
analysed in more detail, including the way
section 4.3 on relevance describes the
they have affected the relevance and
influence of these external factors on ELAs
performance of the intervention assessed.
operations and the relevance of ELAs
Moreover, since the report recognises that
mandate to address these trends in the
digital transition, migration from outside the
future.
EU, and labour and skills shortages are likely
•
Additional clarifications regarding the
to influence ELA’s operations, it should
impact of digital transition, migration from
further examine the relevance of ELA’s
outside the EU, and labour and skills
current mandate to address these significant
shortages were included in Section 4. 3..
trends in the future.
(6)
Conclusions should be thoroughly revised
•
Both the conclusions and the lessons
to ensure they are consistent with the analysis
learned have been thoroughly revised.
and its limitations. Given the significant
•
A particular emphasis has been put on the
methodological limitations and the lack of an
methodological limitations and the absence
adequate monitoring system with KPIs,
of an adequate monitoring system.
targets, and SMART objectives, these
•
The lessons learned include concrete
caveats must be fully reflected in
suggestions on how ELA could come to an
conclusions. As regards lessons learned, the
enhanced strategic approach underpinned
report should address the critical
by a robust performance monitoring
observations identified in the analysis and
system.
provide a thorough overview of how these
limitations may be mitigated in the next
evaluation period, including further detail of
what the performance monitoring system
based on sound indicators and sampling
strategy will look like.
2
nd
Opinion:
The Board …. expects the lead DG to
•
The document has been revised in a
rectify the following aspects:
targeted way to accommodate the
comments made by the RSB.
1.
The report does not adequately assess
ELA’s contribution to fair labour
The main changes introduced are:
mobility across the EU. The
effectiveness and efficiency of the
•
ELA’s contribution to fair labour mobility
has been clarified by establishing a better
intervention require further analysis,
connection between effectiveness and
including why parts of the intervention
71
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0074.png
have not worked as expected.
efficiencies of the interventions on the one
2.
The continued relevance of the
side and ELA’s objectives on the other.
intervention is not sufficiently analysed.
Also, the limitations of the analysis have
3.
The conclusions need to fully reflect
been further clarified.
critical insights from the analysis
•
The continued relevance of the intervention
presented.
has been made more explicit in Section 4.3.
•
Conclusions have been adjusted in a
targeted manner to better reflect insights of
the analysis.
What to improve
(1) The evaluation should define in
•
It is explained that most of the needs,
specific and measurable terms what
justifying the set-up of ELA were
success would look like in achieving the
‘negative’ in nature, i.e directed towards
general objective of enhancing fair labour
avoiding problems. This together with the
mobility in the EU. It also needs, as far as
diversity of social security systems,
possible, to provide an empirical analysis
employment conditions and industrial
of the prevalence and nature of practices
relations, between Member States, makes it
that presently inhibit fair labour mobility.
difficult to ‘measure’ progress towards fair
The intervention logic needs to provide
labour mobility.
definitions of the specific objectives in
•
While it was not possible to retroactively
SMART terms, and clearly identify how
introduce SMART objective, for which the
attaining the specific objectives contributes
respective indicators have not been
to reaching the general objective in order to
collected the revision provides more
facilitate the assessment.
examples how SMART indicators might
look like.
(2) Following the above steps the report
•
It is better explained in the SWD that the
needs to develop relevant indicators,
Impact Assessment primarily relied on
identify and the data necessary to assess if
anecdotal evidence, and while ELA has
the intervention has successfully improved
attempted to map the situation and develop
the situation, including if there has been a
indicators to describe the scale and severity
change in the scale of unfair labour
of challenges, providing such indicators
mobility practices since the introduction of
remains challenging. This difficulty arises
the initiative, and to what extent this
because some of ELA's activities focus on
change is the result of the intervention
largely unseen issues, such as undeclared
rather than other possible factors. The
work or rule violations, while other efforts
report should also provide sufficient detail
aim to improve cooperation, often assessed
of what an adequate performance
through indirect measures.
monitoring system based on sound
indicators and sampling strategy should
•
Beyond that the changes introduced in the
look like, including for future evaluations.
SWD make concrete suggestions for the
It should use the intervention logic and
improvement of ELAs monitoring system,
ELA’s hierarchy of objectives to propose
while respecting that ELA should develop
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the
this system to make it fit with its operation.
lessons learned section.
72
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0075.png
(3) The report should further evaluate the
continued relevance of the intervention. It
should assess to what extent market
failures exist, which could contribute to
decreasing fair labour mobility, and if they
continue to persist. The report should
analyse if the prevalence of such problems
has changed since the introduction of the
intervention. The report should also
analyse the continued relevance of the
intervention in the context of emerging
policy needs, including the focus on
competitiveness
and
reduction
of
regulatory burdens
Section 4.3. has been revised to:
•
better clarify the continued relevance of the
intervention,
•
put the evaluation in the context of ensuring
European competitiveness and
•
explain the limits to which the report can
analyse ELAs impact on the prevalence of
such problems.
•
It has also been clarified in Section 2.1. that
the diversity of national systems
intrinsically requires efforts and rules to
ensure coordination.
•
The Conclusions part has also been
amended to reflect the adjustments from
Section 4.3.
•
(4) The analysis of effectiveness and
•
The report reflects that the mediation
efficiency should be improved. In general,
function has hardly been used so far.
the report contains limited evidence on
Reasons for this are provided. It is pointed
impacts generated, in the absence of
out in Section 2.1 on possible biases of
appropriate KPIs and monitoring systems.
stakeholder responses, that it is very
The report relies overly on stakeholder
difficult for the evaluator to understand
perception’s and does not analyse the full
whether the answer that this activity was
range of possible respondents. The
not useful, just states the obvious: meaning:
conclusions should better reflect dissenting
it has not been used, or whether it includes
opinions, for example on the relevance of
the further reaching statement that it should
the mediation activity.
be abandoned. In the revised version of the
lessons learned it is clarified that this merits
discussions with Member States as they are
the main addressees of this activity.
•
The part on mediation from the
Conclusions (5.1.3.) had been amended
with dissenting views on the relevance of
the mediation function.
(5) On some points, including the
•
The reasons for the shortcomings of
mediation service and EURES, the report
EURES and the mediation function have
indicates inefficiencies or outcomes that
been summarised/flagged in the respective
fall below expectations. In such cases the
sections (4.1.1.2. and 4.1.1.4.).
report needs to analyse the causal reasons
•
For mediation, additional information from
why the intervention has underperformed.
the Case study in the context of the
Supporting study was added to better
understand the general context and demand
for mediation, also in light of a strong call
by stakeholders for the mediation to be
voluntary and non-binding. (Section
4.1.1.4.)
73
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0076.png
•
For the mediation function the lessons
learned have been revised, indicating a
need for a discussion with Member States,
to explore the possibilities for a cost-
efficient service. (Section 5.2. point 8)
(6) The analysis of costs should be
•
The link between weaknesses in the
improved. The discussion on cost-
performance measurement system and
effectiveness does not clearly acknowledge
difficulties to assess the cost-effectiveness
the lack of relevant analytical framework.
of activities is clarified. It is also better
The report deals mostly with costs as
explained that the analysis is built on the
presented in the ELAs budget allocations,
ELA budget while costs outside ELAs
the full costs, accruing to all of ELA’s
budget (e.g. stakeholder expenditure as far
stakeholders, should be assessed.
as not reimbursed by ELA) could only be
taken into account via subjective
assessment of stakeholders, whether for
them benefits outweigh costs. (Section
4.1.2.1.)
(7) The analysis of coherence with
•
It is better explained that ELA was recently
relevant legislation and other EU agencies
set up to better implement EU level policies
should go beyond merely listing them and
and that since then no major changes of the
should substantiate arguments with
political framework have taken place.
examples or other relevant evidence. The
•
Concerning the coherence between ELA
discussion on how ELA's mandate aligns
and other agencies, the relationship with
with other EMPL agencies should (a)
Eurofound is explained in more detail,
include findings of potentially overlapping
whereas different from ELA, OSHA has no
outputs between ELA and Eurofound and
specific focus on cross-border situations
(b) clarify the distinct focus of ELA and
and different from OSHA, ELA has no
EU-OSHA on healthy working conditions.
direct competence on health and safety at
This should inform conclusions on the
the workplace. In cases where the
relevance of ELA’s missions
competences of both agencies have the
same target audience, such as in the
campaign on seasonal work, cooperation
was ensured. (Section 4.1.3.2.)
•
The Coherence part from the Conclusions
was also amended to clarify that no
significant overlaps were identified.
(Section 5.1.)
(8) Critical reflections emerging from the
•
Targeted changes have been made to the
analysis of effectiveness and efficiency
dedicated sections on EURES/mediation in
need to be fully reflected in the
the findings, and the additional critical
conclusions. When the evaluation notes
reflections were introduced in the
that the intervention neither delivers
conclusions (Section 5.1. – chapeau; 5.1.3.
expected benefits in terms of enhanced fair
mediation and 5.1.1. EURES).
74
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0077.png
labour mobility nor its individual
components of the intervention - such as
EURES, mediation mechanism - work as
expected this should be reflected in the
overall assessment of the initiative.
75
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0078.png
A
NNEX
II. M
ETHODOLOGY AND
A
NALYTICAL
M
ODELS USED
1.
Overall approach to the evaluation work
The main goal of the evaluation is to deliver an assessment of the European Labour Authority
(ELA) taking into account its efficiency, coherence and EU added value and relevance, during
the period Q3 2019- Q2 2023.
DG EMPL used a mixed approach for this evaluation, by building on the work of external
experts to (i) collect and analyse the relevant evidence (including consultation work) (via a
supporting study); (ii) provide initial answers to all evaluation questions; and (iii) present
evidence-based conclusions and lessons learnt.
The supporting study followed a mixed methods data collection approach, combining
qualitative and quantitative research tools and sources to collect wide evidence on the ELA
performance. The evaluation focused on assessing the performance of ELA at a broader EU-
level and it did not focus on the performance in each individual Member State and sector,
primarily due to data and sampling constraints.
The overarching methodological approach was based on ELA’s Intervention Logic (see Annex
VI), which formed the foundation of the evaluation’s analytical framework (see Annex III),
encompassing the evaluation inquiries. To conduct the evaluation, the team of experts covering
the supporting study completed the following tasks:
•
•
Desk based mapping of ELA’s activities, outputs and results.
Targeted stakeholder consultations, including:
o
An online survey to ELA staff and Management Board members.
o
An online survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (including EU policy
makers, relevant EU agencies, ELA national counterparts - i.e. labour and social
security authorities including relevant ministries, labour inspectorates, public
employment services-, EU level Social partners and international organisations).
o
23 targeted interviews with representatives from the European Commission,
ELA, ILO, ELA Management Board members, members of National
Coordination Offices, and social partners.
o
A workshop with eight representatives from EU and national level social
partners.
•
•
Public consultation and call for evidence, open to the general public.
Four
214
thematic case studies, including:
o
Case study 1: Information and awareness raising in the field of road transport;
o
Case study 2: European Coordination office of EURES;
o
Case study 3: ELA’s support in concerted and joint inspections;
214
The case studies originally foreseen for this evaluation were five, however the fifth case study (Functioning of
ELA - Synergies between core tasks) is not presented as a standalone case study. Its key inputs have been
integrated where relevant throughout the supporting study.
76
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
o
Case study 4: Mediation task of ELA
•
•
Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Validation focus group with a selected range of stakeholders.
2.
•
Desk based mapping of ELA’s activities, outputs and results
The objectives of the preliminary desk research were threefold:
To deepen the understanding of the Authority and its work and the wider policy
context/framework in which it operates to ensure the refinement of the intervention
logic;
To get a better understanding of the types of sources available, particularly to feed into
the refinement of the evaluation framework and evaluation questions matrix, as well as
to support the mapping exercise;
To identify what information is already available through existing sources versus what
knowledge gaps need to be filled through the supporting study, which will guide the
refinement of the evaluation matrix and the development of data collection tools for
consultations. This notably concerns data/information on costs, providing initial
information for the cost effectiveness analysis.
•
•
Qualitative and quantitative information was gathered concerning ELA starting from Q3 2019,
which was the baseline year, up to Q2 2023. The information gathered contributed to a first
assessment of ELA’s performance and inform subsequent tasks with a specific focus placed on
finding out potential gaps in the evidence-base, to be addressed through primary data collection
methods.
Qualitative data was gathered through desk-based review of analytical and documentary
evidence.
The following sources were used:
•
EU-level documents regulating the legal framework of ELA and other reports produced
by European institutions;
Analytical studies and auditors’ reports;
Studies, documents and reports prepared by ELA;
Planning, monitoring and reporting documentation produced by ELA and other internal
administrative documentation related to ELA’s operation, administration and
governance.
•
•
•
Quantitative data was gathered through planning, monitoring and reporting documentation
produced by ELA (e.g. annual activity reports, annual accounts, etc.) as well as other internal
administrative documentation.
77
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0080.png
3.
Consultation activities
Consultation activities gathered the views of a wide spectrum of relevant stakeholders.
The purpose of consultation activities was to collect the information needed to supplement what
was already available through existing sources of evidence. This consisted of a public
consultation and targeted consultations, including two online surveys (one targeted at ELA staff
and Management Board, and one targeted at key ELA stakeholders), targeted interviews, and a
workshop with social partners. Figure 1 below presents the timeline for the stakeholder
consultation activities that were carried out. Both surveys were launched in the middle of
October (13th October) and remained open until 7th November. Following an initial analysis
of the surveys, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted throughout December/beginning of
January. Following the closure of the Public Consultation on 5th January, the analysis of the
responses received was performed. Ultimately, on 15th of February, a workshop with social
partners was carried out.
Figure 1: Timeline for stakeholder consultations
The evidence collected from the consultation activities was triangulated with the evidence
gathered through the rest of the study tasks, as well as fed into the evidence base for each of
these tasks as relevant.
Survey targeting ELA staff and Management Board and survey targeting ELA
stakeholders
The surveys gathered data concerning all five evaluation criteria. They served a dual purpose
for the research team: on one hand, quantifying diverse aspects of the Agencies' performance
based on these criteria, and on the other hand, gathering qualitative input to enhance the
evaluation process.
The aggregated number of
respondents for the two surveys is 290.
Both surveys remained
open for 25 days (from October 13
th
until November 7
th
, 2023).
The
ELA staff and Management Board survey
was completed by
85 respondents.
Respondents working as staff members of ELA are the largest group of respondents (65.9% -
56 out of 85 respondents), followed by members of the Management Board of ELA, 22.4% of
the respondents (19 out of 85 respondents). Lastly, National Liaison Officers are the smallest
group of respondents (11.8% of responses – 10 out of 85 respondents).
ELA stakeholders survey
was completed by
205 respondents.
In terms of place of work,
respondents working for national ministries are the largest group of respondents (23.4%).
78
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0081.png
Together with respondents working for national public employment services and national
labour inspectorates, they represent over 61% of the total number of respondents.
The survey results have been embedded in the ELA evaluation supporting study.
Interviews
The in-depth interviews fed into the analysis of all evaluation criteria.
23 in-depth interviews
with the Authority’s key stakeholders, including EU institutions, social partners, the ILO and
Member State representatives, and ELA staff (Table 1). The purpose of these interviews was
to gather in-depth insights that were unavailable through the literature review and were
challenging to capture using the closed-ended questions employed in the rest of the consultation
activities.
Table 1: List of EU-level and international interviewees
Category of stakeholder
Type
of
stakeholder
DG EMPL
DG MOVE
DG GROW
No of interviews
EU-institutions
1
2
1
6
1
7
EU Agencies
International organisations
Public authorities at national level
ELA
ILO
Management
Board Members
EURES National
Coordination
Office
3
Social partner at EU level
ETUC
Business Europe
1
1
23
Total
Workshop with social partners
A workshop involving
EU and national social partners
was conducted to discuss awareness
of ELA and its activities' impact among social partners and on-the-ground workers and
employers. Held online, the session featured eight participants from various sectors, including
construction, transport, food, and agriculture.
79
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0082.png
Public consultation
The public consultation was available from 6 October 2023 to 5 January 2024 in 24 official EU
languages (i.e. it targeted the wider public)). Eight weeks after the conclusion of the public
consultation, a factual summary was published on the European Commission’s webpages
215
,
whereas the consultation’s analytical findings can be found in Annex VI, which is appended to
the final report.
The aim of the public consultation was to allow a wider public to give its views concerning
ELA. The consultation’s questionnaire included both close and open-ended questions and
covered all five evaluation criteria.
Dissemination efforts included promotion on social medial channels, both of the Commission
and ELA (Facebook, LinkedIn, X), and sharing the survey with all ELA relevant groups
(Management Board, Platform Tackling Undeclared Work, Mediation Working Group,
Information Working Group, Inspections Working Groups, Posting Forum, EURES European
Coordination Group etc), the Employment Committee, the Public Employment Services (PES)
Network, the Europass Advisory Group, the ESCO Advisory Committee, the Council of the
European Union (Social Questions Working Party), Members of the European Parliament –
Employment Committee, European Social Partners – Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees,
academia representatives, other DGs (DG MOVE, DG GROW, DG HOME with their relevant
networks – SOLVIT, European Migration Network etc), civil society organisations.
144 contributions to the public consultation were made via the EU web-portal “Have Your
Say”. Five ad-hoc contributions were sent via email by SGI Europe, DGB German Trade Union
Confederation, the Danish Ministry of Employment, the European Cockpit Association and the
French Ministry of Employment.
Following a systematic quality check of all answers received, the total number of questionnaires
considered for the analysis was
142.
124 out of 142 responses were provided by stakeholders from across 24 Member States.
216
Responses to multiple-choice questions in the were analysed through quantitative
analysis/descriptive statistical analysis. Answers to the open questions were qualitatively
analysed using NVivo.
Figure 2: Distribution of responses per type of respondent (n=142)
215
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-2024-Evaluation-of-the-
European-Labour-Authority-/public-consultation_en
216
The 3 EU countries without any responses were Greece, Latvia and Malta.
80
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0083.png
Call for Evidence
The Call for Evidence, which was active for feedback from October 6, 2023, to January 5, 2024,
received 30 responses across six distinct groups of stakeholders, specifically: business
associations, trade unions, public authorities, companies or business organizations, EU citizens,
and NGOs. Notably, nearly 70% of the feedback (20 out of 30 responses) was contributed by
three key groups: business associations (8), trade unions (8), and EU citizens (4)
4.
Efficiency analysis
Taking into account the inherent challenges stemming from the start-up phase of an Agency,
the analysis did make use of the quantitative information available and appended this with more
qualitative information from desk research, surveys and interviews.
The analysis started with a more general assessment of the Authority’s efficiency by analysing
quantitative data on (financial) resources of the Authority. The budgetary evolution of ELA was
further analysed alongside the absorption of the budget, the division between budget categories
and tasks and, where relevant, compared these to other agencies and expectations made in the
ELA impact assessment. Subsequently, the analysis focused on the specific activities of ELA.
The analysis of these activities was based at the resources (both staff and operational) allocated
towards the different activities, the main output/result indicators (where available, e.g. EURES)
and the views from the stakeholders and staff of ELA.
The fact that ELA did not yet have a proper monitoring system, some tasks had very low
prioritisation leading to little results, and the lack of a proper benchmark makes a quantitative
judgement of the cost-effectiveness of ELA not feasible. See also limitations in the section 7
below (p. xx)_
5.
Case studies
Case studies were conducted to provide an in-depth understanding of concrete activities
developed by the Authority in the last few years that were in line with ELA’s main tasks
specified by Article 4 of the Regulation establishing ELA
217
.
217
Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a
European Labour Authority.
81
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0084.png
Table 2. Overview of the selected case studies
Case Studies
Case Study 1:
Information and awareness raising
in the field of road transport
Case Study 2:
Managing the
Coordination Office (ECO) of EURES
Case Study 3:
Supporting
concerted and joint inspections
and
European
Targeted ELA Tasks
Facilitate access to information for individuals and
employers on labour mobility (Article 4(a))
Coordinate EURES (Article 4(a))
promoting
Coordinate and support concerted and joint inspections
(Article 4 (c))
Mediate disputes between Member States on the
application of relevant Union law (Article 4(g))
ELA’s tasks, Article 4 (a-g) – This material was directly
included in the main report.
Case Study 4:
Mediation Task of ELA
Case Study 5:
Functioning of ELA – synergies
between core tasks
These case studies included not only a backward-looking approach to identify and evaluate
already conducted activities between 2019 and 2023 but also a forward-looking dimension to
allow for lessons to be drawn for the future.
Case study 5 is not presented as stand alone, rather the findings integrated directly into the
supporting study. These are presented as evidence gathered through the interviews and desk
research collected during the Case study’s research.
6.
Validation workshop
A validation workshop, held online on June 5, 2024, aimed to present the supporting study's
findings and capture participants' perspectives on its conclusions and lessons learned. Nine
stakeholders, including a European Commission representative, two Heads of Unit from ELA,
two ELA Management Board members, two from the EURES coordination group, one from
the ELA mediation working group, and one social partner representative, contributed to the
session. They confirmed the study's conclusions and lessons.
7.
Limitations and robustness of findings
A significant limitation to this research consists in the short timespan between the time when
Agency became financially independent and operational after the adoption of the Regulation
and this evaluation. The Founding Regulation was adopted in 2019, to create a new Authority.
So as from 2019 the Authority was built up and activities started successively. As from early
2020 the set-up process was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: this external shock forced
the Authority to perform the tasks in a remote/hybrid configuration.
As a consequence, the date by which ELA was planned to be fully operational was postponed
from 2023 to 2024. The financial independence was achieved in May 2021.
82
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0085.png
Furthermore, this evaluation started in 2023, i.e. before the setup process was fully
accomplished and with the objective of evaluating the performance of the Authority across its
wide range of tasks up until Q2 2023.
Hence, the research is subject to a number of limitations, mainly stemming from data
availability and the quality of data at hand. This section lists these limitations, together with the
mitigation measures taken.
Mapping of the Agencies’ activities, outputs and results
Overall, the desk-based review of the Agencies’ monitoring data has shown that for the majority
of the evaluation period, there was no strategy at ELA for KPIs measurement: only in 2022 the
Authority developed a set of KPIs linked to the strategic areas.
Moreover, the very few indicators available in ELA’s monitoring system hampered the
qualitative assessment of the results of the Authority’s activities, as the prevalence of output
indicators limited the possibility to benchmark the effects of the activities. Moreover, the lack
of available quantitative data (most of the indicators used in this study were only available for
2021 and/or 2022) had a direct impact the efficiency/cost-effectiveness analysis.
Consultation activities
Most stakeholder groups were covered by at least two forms of consultation activities, thus
adding to the robustness of the data collection process. All the identified stakeholders
participate in at least one consultation activity (see Table 3 below).
Table 3. Stakeholder consultation strategy
Description of stakeholder group
Main group
Specific types of
organisations
EU Commission
EU Agencies
ELA
218
European Parliament
(relevant committees)
Council of the
European Union
(Employment
Committee)
Consultation approach
Public
consultation
Interviews
Online
surveys
Workshop
EU institutions and
bodies
Public authorities
national level
at
•
•
Relevant national
ministries
Labour inspectorates
218
This includes operational, administrative staff, members of the Management Board and NLOs.
83
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0086.png
•
•
•
Social security
coordination
organisations
Public employment
services
EURES National
Coordination
Officess
Trade unions
organisations
Employers´
organisations
Social partners
•
•
International
organisations
Research & academia
•
ILO
General public
We should consider that the public consultation and the stakeholder survey did not have a finite
population. Hence, the sample of these surveys should not be considered as representative, and
their results should not be generalised. While the same was not true for the staff survey, its
response rate also rendered its findings as non-representative. At the same time, while the staff
and Management Board survey had a finite population, its sample size, albeit important, cannot
equally be considered as fully representative.
To address these limitations, the results of the different surveys were compared with each other,
as well as with findings from interviews and desk-based research. Moreover, the information
incorporated in the final report underwent validation through the validation focus group.
Consequently, even though the sample size of the forementioned surveys might not have been
fully representative, the evidence used in shaping the final report gained in reliability due to
this approach.
Finally, despite extensive dissemination efforts, the sample size of the public consultation and
the stakeholders’ survey was relatively limited. Hence, while it was not always possible to
conduct sub-group analysis for different stakeholder groups, such analyses have been
conducted whenever feasible.
Cost-effectiveness analysis
A cost-effectiveness analysis is a comparative method which evaluates cost per result indicators
against a comparable benchmark. In the initial approach the study team opted to compare
indicators either over time or against indicators of other agencies. During the course of this
study, it was found that this approach was largely unfeasible.
First of all, the type of activities, outputs and results produced by ELA do not easily lend
themselves to be used in a cost per output or result indicator which can be compared to similar
84
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0087.png
agencies.This was also acknowledged in the four agencies evaluation
219
, where this type of
indicators were not used.
A comparable benchmark was therefore not present for most of the activities of ELA.
Furthermore, an important caveat in the cost-effectiveness analysis was the lack of robust data
on the effects of activities.
The available indicators, most only introduced in 2021 or 2022, were output-oriented, and say
little about the effects of the activities. For the majority of the evaluation period, there also was
no clear strategy at ELA when it comes to measuring KPI’s. The Annual Activity report of 2022
did include indicators for different tasks, but these were very much focused on output (i.e.
number of activities/participants etc.). The indicators which were more focused on results were
not quantified.
In light of the above challenges, the evaluation relied on a mixed approach to make use of the
quantitative information available and appended this with more qualitative information from
desk research and stakeholder perceptions from surveys and interviews.
219
SWD (2024) 222 final
and
COM (2024) 414 final
and
85
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0088.png
A
NNEX
III.
Evaluation question
E
VALUATION
M
ATRIX
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
1. To what extent were the actions of the European Labour Authority successful and why?
Effectiveness
1.1.
To what extent did the
European
Labour
Authority
achieve
its
objectives?
1.1.1.
To what extent did the
Authority
contribute
to
ensuring fair labour mobility
across the Union and
assisted Member States and
the Commission in the
coordination
of
social
security systems within the
Union?
[General
Objective
of
the
Intervention logic, Art.2]
Impact indicator
qualitative:
–
quantitative
and
The
Authority
contributed to fair labour
mobility and supported
MS and COM in
coordination
social
security systems within
the EU.
Where
shortcomings
have been identified,
these are duly justified
by explanatory factors
[Long-term Impact of
the Intervention]
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2022)
ELA’s Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
Stakeholders’ views on the overall effects and
benefits of the activities implemented by the
Authority
Stakeholders’ perception as regards the
extent to which the Authority’s objectives have
been reached
Evidence/examples of external factors that
helped or hindered the achievement of
intended outputs and results
Composite indicator: Evidence on the degree
to which the specific and operational)
objectives of the Authority were met based on
evidence from the related questions below
(Qs 1.1.1 to 1.1.7)
Case study 5: Functioning of
ELA – synergies between
core tasks
Public consultation
1.1.2.
To what extent did the
Authority
facilitate access
to information on rights
and obligations
regarding
labour mobility across the
Input indicator – quantitative
ELA budget allocated to information activities
Output indicators - quantitative
The Authority facilitated
access to information
on
rights
and
obligations
regarding
labour mobility across
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
86
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0089.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
the Union as well as to
other relevant services
[Intended result 1 of
the Intervention]
Data sources / analytical
approach
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
Union as well as to other
relevant services?
[Specific Objective 1 (Art.2(a)) &
Operational Objective 1 of the
Intervention (Art.5)]
Number of support actions for information to
employers and workers in specific sectors,
including road transport
Number of workshops delivered and number
of participants
Number of visits and downloads of guidelines
and other training material from website and
assistance to national services
Number of translation requests processed
Number of information campaigns
Number of joint activities with other EU
bodies, national authorities and social
partners
Result indicators - qualitative
Satisfaction
workshops
levels
after
participation
in
Case study 1: Information
and awareness raising in the
field of road transport
Public consultation
Examples of synergies with other relevant EU
agencies or networks
End-user satisfaction with the accessibility,
completeness and usefulness of the
information provided by the Authority
Multiplier effect of ELA’s actions (e.g.
campaigns being picked up at national level)
1.1.3.
To what extent did the
Authority promote the further
implementation
of
the
provisions of the EURES
Regulation?
How did the
Output indicators - quantitative:
Number of ECG meetings organised (after
2021)
The Authority promoted
the
further
implementation of the
EURES monitoring data
Single Market Scoreboard
87
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0090.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
provisions
of
the
EURES Regulation
Potential links between
the transferal of the
ECO from the European
Commission to the
Authority and the effects
identified.
[Intended result 1 of
the Intervention]
Data sources / analytical
approach
Results from the ex-post
evaluation of EURES
Surveys
Case study 2: Managing the
European
Coordination
Office (ECO) of EURES
Interviews
EURES network and portal
develop once the European
Coordination Office was
transferred to the Authority?
[Specific Objective 1 (Art.2(a)) &
Operational Objective 2 (Art.6) of
the Intervention]
Number of unique visitors to the EURES
Portal (after 2021)
Number of jobseeker profiles registered on
the EURES Portal (after 2021)
Number of employers registered on the
EURES Portal (after 2021)
Number of persons who found a job in another
country with the help of EURES (after 2021)
Number of EURES Portal facilitated
placements in relation to new cross-border
movers (after 2021)
Number of job vacancies on EURES Portal
(after 2021)
Share of vacancies posted on EURES as a
proportion of national vacancies (after 2021)
Number of recruitment/placements and job
offers made through the EURES Portal (after
2021)
Number of training activities assisting staff
operating in the organisations participating in
the EURES network (after 2021)
Number of European Job Days events
organised (after 2021)
Number of individuals reached at events (after
2021)
Number of EURES campaigns (after 2021)
Result indicators - qualitative:
88
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0091.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Participants’
trainings
satisfaction
with
EURES
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Participants’ satisfaction with Job Days
Stakeholders’ feedback on social media
presence of the EURES network
Stakeholders' feedback on
European Coordination Office
the
EURES
Stakeholders'
satisfaction
with
the
functionalities and information on the EURES
Portal
Stakeholders' views on potential links
between the effects observed and the transfer
of the ECO to ELA
1.1.4.
To what degree did the
Authority
facilitate
and
enhance
cooperation
between Member States in
the enforcement of relevant
Union law across the Union,
including
facilitating
concerted
and
joint
inspections?
Input indicator - quantitative:
Total ELA budget spent on CJIs
Member States’ costs for CJIs
Output indicators - quantitative:
Number of cross-border inspections (in total,
by sector and over time), at the request of
Member States, suggested by ELA or
resulting from cases submitted by national
social partners
Number of cases on cross-border fines,
notification of fines, recovered tax and social
security contributions
Number of infringements found through CJIs
The Authority facilitated
and
enhanced
cooperation
between
Member States in the
enforcement of relevant
Union law across the
Union.
The Authority facilitated
concerted and joint
inspections.
[Intended result 2 of
the Intervention]
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
ELA’s 2022
inspections
report
on
Single Market Scoreboard
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Case study 3: Supporting and
promoting concerted and joint
inspections
[Specific Objective 2 (Art.2 (b)),
Operational Objective 3 (Art.7) &
Operational Objective 4 (Arts.8 & 9)
of the Intervention]
89
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0092.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Number of mutual learning and training
activities related to CJIs organised or
supported
Number of information campaigns on CJIs
organised
Number of guidelines, templates and
procedures developed and updated for the
exchange of information between Member
States
Number of guidelines, templates and
procedures developed and updated for
concerted and joint inspections
Number of strategic partnerships on CJIs
arranged
Result indicators
quantitative:
–
Qualitative
and
Number of participants trained
Number of Member States involved in CJIs
Perceived level of communication
cooperation among CJIs participants
and
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with ELA capacity
building activities and instruments
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with use of ELA’s
risk assessment activities in supporting
inspections
90
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0093.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’
satisfaction
with
ELA’s
facilitation of cooperation exchange between
the Member States
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with guidelines,
templates and procedures developed and
updated
Stakeholders’ views on benefits and
limitations of CJIs (e.g. improved workers
situation, collection of social security
contributions, wider benefits of ELA support to
all inspections, i.e. non-CJI)
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
To what extent did the
Authority cover the
analyses
and risk assessment
tasks
linked to issues of cross-
border labour mobility?
[Specific Objective 2 (Art.2 (b)),
Operational Objective 5 (Art.10) of
the Intervention]
1.1.5.
Output indicators - quantitative:
Number of analytical activities (mappings,
analyses, reports, etc.)
Number of topics and sectors covered
Number of meetings
Number of peer reviews
Number of workshops organised in risk
assessment activities and labour mobility
analyses
Result indicators
quantitative:
–
qualitative
and
The Authority covered
effectively the analyses
and risk assessment
tasks
[Intended result 2 of
the Intervention]
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2022)
Monitoring data
Work programmes/ planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Number of stakeholders involved in analytical
activities
Number of stakeholders involved in risk
assessment activities and labour mobility
analyses
91
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0094.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Stakeholders' satisfaction with the mutual
learning assistance
Stakeholders' satisfaction with the timeliness
and completeness of monitoring and
statistical data
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with ELA’s analysis
and risk assessment activities (e.g. relevance
of topics analysed, quality and value added of
ELA’s analysis)
1.1.6.
How well was the
capacity
building
task implemented?
To what extent did it promote
the consistent enforcement
of EU law?
[Specific Objectives 1 & 2 (Arts.2(a)
and 2(b)), Operational Objective 6
(Art.11) of the Intervention]
Output indicators - Quantitative:
Number of documents published (e.g.
guidance for inspections in cross- border
cases, definitions, concepts)
Number of peer-to-peer and group activities
organised
Number of staff exchanges and secondment
schemes between national authorities
Number of sectoral and cross-sectoral
training programmes and training materials
(e.g. for labour inspectorates)
Result indicator - qualitative:
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with ELA’s capacity
building activities (e.g. quality of the
documentation, take up at national level of
ELA’s definitions and concepts, etc.)
1.1.7.
To what extent ELA’s task
related to
cooperation
and
facilitation of
exchange of
Output indicators - quantitative:
The Authority effectively
implemented
its
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2022)
The
Authority
implemented effectively
its capacity building
task,
promoting
a
consistent enforcement
of EU law
[Intended result 1 of
the Intervention]
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2022)
Monitoring data
Work programmes/ planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
92
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0095.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
within
cooperation
and
information exchange
task,
supporting
Member States with
their
effective
compliance
with
cooperation obligations
[Intended result 2 of
the Intervention]
Data sources / analytical
approach
Monitoring data
Work programmes/ planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
information
between
Member
States
was
effective?
[Specific Objective 2 (Art.2 (b)),
Operational Objective 3 (Art.7) of
the Intervention]
Share of
deadlines
information
exchanged
Number of cases referred to ELA to facilitate
cooperation and to accelerate the exchange
of information
Number of requests for information by
Member States on the effective application of
Union acts with regards to cooperation
National events (initiated by ELA’s NLOs)
aiming to improve cooperation between
Member States and ELA’s outreach
Number of ELA’s activities to promote the use
of Internal Market Information (IMI) System
Result indicator - qualitative:
Stakeholders’
satisfaction
with
ELA’s
cooperation and information exchange
activities
Stakeholders' opinion on administrative
burden related to information exchange
1.1.8.
How well was the
mediation
task implemented? What are
the main lessons learned?
Output indicators - quantitative:
Number of meetings and deliverables of the
Working Group on mediation
Individual cases submitted to ELA/ Individual
cases processed by ELA
Number of training sessions organised
Time needed to settle disputes
[Specific Objective 3 (Art.2 (c)),
Operational Objective 8 (Art.13) of
the Intervention]
ELA
successfully
implemented mediation
procedures
which
contributed to facilitate
a solution in cases of
cross-border disputes
between
Member
States
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
93
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0096.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
[Intended result 3 of
the Intervention]
Data sources / analytical
approach
Workshop
partners
with
social
Number of implemented/respected opinions
by the Member States party to disputes
Number of areas under ELA remit for which
dispute settlement is used
Result indicators - qualitative:
Examples of resolved disputes
Stakeholders’ views on the role of the
Authority concerning mediation
1.1.9.
What are the concrete gains
for the
Platform tackling
undeclared work
following
the integration into the
European Labour Authority?
Output indicators - quantitative:
Number of learning resource papers,
seminars, workshops, webinars, follow-
up/study visits and other mutual learning
formats
Number of studies, toolkits and similar written
outputs aiming to improve knowledge of
undeclared work
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence / examples of changes in the focus
of the activities of the Platform
Examples of synergies between the platform
and the Authority’s existing structures
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with the quality of
the informative materials, tools and events
related to undeclared work
Stakeholders’ satisfaction with the level of
cooperation between Working Group on
Case study 4: Mediation Task
of ELA
Public consultation
[Specific Objective 4 (Art.2 (d)),
Operational Objective 7 (Art.12) of
the Intervention]
The Platform tackling
undeclared work benefit
greatly
from
the
integration
in
the
European
Labour
Authority
[Intended result 4 of
the Intervention]
ELA Regulation
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
94
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0097.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Tackling
Data sources / analytical
approach
Inspections and
Undeclared Work
the
Platform
Stakeholders’ views on the integration of the
Platform into the European Labour Authority
1.2.
To what extent were the
activities of the European
Labour Authority link to the
legal acts included in the
scope of the founding
Regulation (Article 1(4)?
Did the Authority go
beyond these legal acts?
To what extent were the
services of the European
Labour Authority actually
used
by
their
stakeholders,
including
EU
Institutions,
stakeholders
in
the
Member
States,
international bodies and
organizations?
How do stakeholders and
the wider public perceive
the quality of the services
provided by the European
Labour Authority? How
1.2.1.
To what extent were the
activities carried out by the
Authority in line with the
scope of the Regulation?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
ELA performed activities beyond its mandate
Legal comparison between ELA’s activities
and outputs and the mandate of the founding
Regulation
Examples of the ELA activities that go beyond
the provisions of the founding Regulation
The activities of the
Authority were linked to
the legal acts included
in the scope of the
founding Regulation.
ELA Regulation
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Interviews
1.3.
1.3.1.
1.3.2.
1.3.3.
Which stakeholders used the
services provided by the
Authority?
Which stakeholders used
which services and why?
What
factors
explain
differences in use of given
services / services?
Output indicator – quantitative:
Number of ELA’s joint activities, meetings,
workshops with other EU bodies, national
authorities and the social partners
The services of the
Authority are used by a
representative sample
of different stakeholder
categories
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
Output indicators from question 1.1.4 about
types of stakeholders involved in CJIs
Result indicators - qualitative:
Location of unique visitors to the EURES
Portal
Type of users of ELA Translation Facility
Jobseeker profiles registered on the EURES
Portal
Public consultation
95
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0098.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
visible were the actions
and
to
which
stakeholders?
Economic sector of employers registered on
the EURES Portal
Result indicators from question 1.1.4 about
types of stakeholders involved in CJIs
Degree of stakeholders’ awareness of ELA’s
activities, per stakeholder group
Type of stakeholders participating to ELA’s
joint activities, meetings, workshops with
other EU bodies, national authorities and the
social partners
Satisfaction of Member States’ authorities and
other stakeholders with their degree of
involvement in ELA’s activities
Degree of satisfaction of Member State
authorities and other stakeholders with the
quality (i.e. timeliness, completeness, clarity,
usefulness) of ELA’s activities
1.4.
To what extent did the
European
Labour
Authority focus its work on
areas most in need and
where they can have an
impact? Did the Authority
go beyond its mandate,
and to what extent?
1.4.1.
1.4.2.
1.4.3.
1.4.4.
What areas did the Authority
focus its work on and why?
Did the Authority undertake
prioritisation of certain topics
or tasks? Has this been
appropriate?
Were any changes made
over the years? If so, why?
Were these changes in line
with changes in needs and
areas where the Authority
can have an impact?
Input indicator – quantitative
Budget allocated to ELA’s areas of work
Result indicators - qualitative:
Specific areas in which ELA carried out
activities in each year
Alignment of ELA’s programming documents
with outputs delivered in the different areas of
work of the Authority
Evidence / examples of changes in the focus
of the activities of the Authority
ELA’s views on the rationale for the areas in
which work was focused
The majority of the
activities
of
the
Authority focused on
areas most in need or
where they could have
an impact
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Public consultation
96
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0099.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’ views on whether prioritisation
of topics / tasks is appropriate
Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the
activities of ELA focused on areas most in
need / where ELA could have an impact
Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the
activities of ELA focused on areas linked to
the EU policy priorities (e.g. developments on
digital transformation, transition to a climate-
neutral economy, population ageing, gender
and diversity, labour mobility and recovery
from the COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine,
trends affecting EU cross-border labour
mobility)
Activities and rationale of ELA’s campaigns
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
1.5.
Were there other broader
achievements/unexpected
impacts
arising
from
ELA’s work?
1.5.1.
1.5.2.
1.6.
Which factors facilitated or
hindered the effectiveness
of the work of the
European
Labour
Authority? To what degree
did host Members States
fulfil their obligations as
1.6.1.
1.6.2.
1.6.3.
Have there been any
unintended effects / impacts
(positive or negative)? If so,
what were they?
Which (internal and external)
factors
led
to
these
unexpected
effects
/
impacts?
What did the Authority set out
to
achieve
(general/specific/operational
objectives)?
To what extent have targets /
KPIs been met?
To what extent have intended
outputs been achieved?
Result indicator - qualitative:
Stakeholders’
views
on
unintended
positive/negative effects of ELA’s work
Evidence / examples of factors that caused
these unintended effects
Where
unintended
effects were observed,
these were mitigated
where possible and did
not cause significant
issues
Work programmes / planning
documents
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
Output indicators - quantitative:
Quantitative KPIs/ targets of the Authority
across the strategic areas of work of the
Authority
Result indicators - qualitative:
The Authority achieved
its objectives to a large
extent
Where
shortcomings
have been identified,
these are duly justified
by explanatory factors
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Workshop
partners
with
social
Headquarter Agreements
97
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0100.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Member States fulfilled
their obligations as
defined
in
the
Headquarters
Agreements between
the ELA and Member
States
Data sources / analytical
approach
defined
in
the
Headquarters
Agreements between the
ELA and Member State?
1.6.4.
1.6.5.
1.6.6.
1.6.7.
1.6.8.
To what extent have intended
results been achieved?
To what extent can the
observed
effects
be
attributed to the Authority’s
work?
What external influencing
factors played a role (if any)?
What were the obligations of
the host Member States?
To what extent did the host
Member States fulfil their
obligations?
Qualitative KPIs/ targets of the Authority
across the strategic areas of work of the
Authority
Comparison between achieved results and
target outputs of the Authority
Stakeholders’ views on links between the
inputs/activities of the Authority and the
achievement of the results
Stakeholders’ views on the effects and
benefits of the activities implemented by the
Authority
Evidence/examples of internal and external
factors that helped or hindered the
achievement of intended outputs and results
Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the
host Member States fulfilled their obligations
as defined in the founding Regulation
1.7.
To what degree did the
European
Labour
Authority
adapt
to
changes in EU policy, to
Commission
political
priorities
over
the
evaluation period and to
the political and socio-
economic situation in
general?
1.7.1.
1.7.2.
What changes to the socio-
economic context and policy
priorities in the fields of
relevance to the Authority
took place during 2019-
2023?
Was the Authority sufficiently
flexible to respond to
changes in the socio-
economic
context
and
corresponding
policy
priorities in a timely manner?
Output indicators
qualitative:
–
quantitative
and
Number of EU citizens who work and live in
another Member State, per nationality and
economic sector
Number of mobile workers of working age
GVA per economic sector, EU27
Number of road transport sector workers who
cross intra-EU borders on a daily basis
Number of cross-border workers
The Authority effectively
adapted to relevant
changes
in
socio-
economic context and
EU policy priorities
EUROSTAT data
Interviews
98
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0101.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Number of cross-border workers involved in
undeclared work
Policy
developments
on
digital
transformation, transition to a climate-neutral
economy, population ageing, gender and
diversity, labour mobility and recovery from
the COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine,
trends affecting EU cross-border labour
mobility
Result indicators - qualitative:
Extent to which ELA’s activities cover the
policy priorities of the EU Commission
Stakeholders’ views on the impact of such
changes to the socio-economic context on the
Authority’s work
Stakeholders’ views on the adaptability of the
Authority
1.8.
How did the European
Labour Authority ensure a
concrete contribution with
regard to the unexpected
and additional challenge
of the COVID pandemic
and the Ukrainian crisis,
where relevant?
1.8.1.
1.8.2.
What were the actions taken
by the Authority to mitigate
unforeseen challenges (e.g.
COVID
pandemic,
the
outbreak of the war in
Ukraine)?
To what extent were these
actions effective?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Actions implemented in response to
unforeseen challenges (e.g. evidence of
adaptations/introduction
of
new
actions/services in response to the Covid-19
and Ukraine crises in ELA Work Programmes)
Planned events/trainings, reports/studies
related to the impact of unforeseen crises on
labour mobility issues
N/A - Exploratory
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
with
social
Public consultation
99
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0102.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’
views
concerning
the
effectiveness of the actions undertaken by the
Authority to mitigate unforeseen challenges
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Efficiency
1.9.
To what extent were the
actions of the European
Labour Authority cost-
effective?
1.9.1.
What costs were associated
with the activities / operations
of the Authority?
How did these costs compare
to the outputs produced and
the results achieved? Were
they proportionate?
Input indicators - quantitative:
Annual amount (€) and share (%) of
expenditure allocated, committed and
disbursed at the level of:
•
Activities / outputs
•
Results
Trends in costs over time
Analysis of budgets of the Authority (e.g.
Changes/transfers in the budgetary titles,
carry overs)
Evidence of increases / decreases in costs
over time
Result indicators - qualitative:
Outcomes of ELA’s audits
Extent to which any recommendations
concerning budget implementation issues
have been implemented/addressed
Stakeholders’ views on proportionality of
costs with respect to benefits from complying
with activities related to interactions with the
Authority (e.g. IT costs, administrative burden,
costs for additional staff, etc.)
The operations of the
Authority was cost-
effective
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Public consultation
Cost-effectiveness analysis
1.9.2.
100
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0103.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’ views on the appropriateness
of changes in costs over time
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
1.10.
To what extent were staff
resources and workload
appropriate
to
fulfil
efficiently and effectively
the Authority’s objectives
and
activities?
How
balanced
was
the
administrative
and
operational budget and
why?
1.10.1. Were the Authority’s financial
and
human
resources
sufficient to enable them to
do its work efficiently?
1.10.2. What working practices and
procedures are in place?
Were these appropriate?
1.10.3. Were there any differences
over time? If so, what are
good practices / lessons
learned?
Input indicators
qualitative:
–
quantitative
and
Annual amount (€/FTE) and share (%) of
human, administrative and operational
expenditure allocated, committed and
disbursed at the level of:
• Activities / outputs
• Results
Recruitment/turnover/establishment plans of
the Authority
Result indicators - qualitative:
Authority staff / management views on
inefficiencies in working practices and
procedures
Authority staff / management views on the
sufficiency of the human and financial
resources allocated to given tasks
Identified good practices / lessons learned
The resources allocated
were sufficient and
appropriate to achieve
the intended outcomes
The administrative and
operational budgets of
the
Authority
were
balanced
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
Interviews
Cost-effectiveness analysis
1.11.
To what extent were the
internal mechanisms for
monitoring, reporting and
evaluating the Authority
adequate for ensuring
accountability
and
appropriate assessment
1.11.1. What mechanisms were in
place in the Authority for
monitoring, reporting and
evaluation?
1.11.2. Were the mechanisms for
monitoring, reporting and
evaluating the work of the
Authority
adequate
for
Result indicators
qualitative:
–
quantitative
and
Evidence / examples of internal mechanisms
in place for monitoring, reporting and
evaluation
Internal mechanisms for
monitoring,
reporting
and evaluating the work
of the Authority were
adequate for ensuring
accountability and there
were no gaps which
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Previous
evaluations
EMPL agencies
of
Work programmes / planning
documents
101
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0104.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Benchmarks of ELA’s performance in
comparison with the EMPL Agencies in terms
of adequacy of internal programming,
monitoring,
reporting
and
evaluating
mechanisms
Authority staff’s views on the appropriateness
of the mechanisms for monitoring, reporting
and evaluation
Identified
administrative
inefficiencies
burdens
/
Norms/Judgement
criteria
prevent an appropriate
assessment of their
overall performance
The mechanisms did
not
impose
disproportionate
burdens on staff
Data sources / analytical
approach
Surveys
Interviews
of
the
overall
performance,
while
minimising
the
administrative
burden?
Did digitalization play a
role in the above?
ensuring accountability and
assessment of the overall
performance
of
the
Authority?
1.11.3. Did
these
mechanisms
minimise the administrative
burden imposed on staff? Did
digitalisation play a role?
How?
1.11.4. Were there any differences
over time? If so, what are
good practices / lessons
learned?
Identified good practices / lessons learned
1.12.
How efficient were the
governance structures of
the European Labour
Authority? To what extent
is the size and the
composition
of
the
Authority’s Management
Board appropriate for the
size and nature of ELA so
as to ensure its ability to
perform its tasks and
effective and efficient
governance?
1.12.1. To what extent did the
organisational structures and
/ or other factors support the
achievement
of
the
Authority’s objectives?
1.12.2. Were the compositions of the
Management Boards and
Stakeholder
Group
appropriate? Why or why
not?
1.12.3. Were there any inefficiencies
in the governance of the
Authority?
1.12.4. What are good practices /
lessons learned?
Result indicators
qualitative:
–
quantitative
and
Assessment of whether the Authority’s
governance models is aligned with
recognised good practices for executive
agencies (cf. Roadmap on the follow-up to the
Common Approach on EU decentralised
agencies)
Benchmarking of ELA’s Management Board’s
size, composition and costs associated to its
functioning, with respect to other EMPL
agencies
Authority staff / management / stakeholder
views on the appropriateness of the size and
composition of the Management Boards
The
Authority’s
governance structures
supported their mission
statements
ELA Regulation
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Work programmes / planning
documents
Interviews
102
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0105.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
The data protection
aspects were taken into
account
in
the
deployment
of
the
Authority’s activities.
Data sources / analytical
approach
ELA Regulation
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Work programmes / planning
documents
1.13.
How well were the data
protection aspects taken
into account in the
deployment
of
the
Authority’s activities?
1.14.
Were there any potential
areas and/or activities
which could be subject to
simplification
and/or
administrative
burden
reduction?
1.13.1. How were the data protection
aspects treated by the
Authority in the deployment
of its activities?
1.13.2. Were there any hindrances
related to the effective
enforcement
of
data
protection mechanisms in the
deployment of the Authority’s
activities?
1.14.1. Did established procedures
minimise the administrative
burden of the Authority and
their stakeholders?
1.14.2. Is there any scope for
simplification? How?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Data protection mechanisms put in place by
the Authority (e.g. reports on data protection)
Perceived effectiveness of data protection
mechanisms employed
Input indicators - quantitative:
Cost data from Authority and other
stakeholders
on
the
compliance/implementation/administration of
the established procedures
Result indicators - qualitative:
Stakeholders’ views on the main costs and
benefits
associated
with
compliance/implementation/administration of
the established procedures
Evidence / examples of inefficiencies or
administrative burdens (for the Authority and
stakeholders)
Authority staff / stakeholder views on the
administrative burden imposed on them
Identified options / areas for simplification
Identified good practices / lessons learned
There
were
no
disproportionate
administrative burdens
or inefficiencies
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Monitoring data
Work programmes/ planning
documents
Interviews
Coherence
103
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0106.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
The
mandate
and
activities
of
the
Authority was coherent
with EU policies
The Authority worked
cooperatively
with
relevant
Commission
services
Data sources / analytical
approach
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Work programmes / planning
documents
Survey
Interviews
1.15.
To what extent are the
mandate and activities of
the European Labour
Authority coherent with
DG EMPL policies and
with other EU policies? To
what extent does the
Authority
work
cooperatively with DG
EMPL
and
other
Commission services.
1.15.1. To what extent was the work
of the Authority aligned with
DG EMPL policies?
1.15.2. To what extent was the work
of the Authority aligned with
other relevant EU policies?
1.15.3. Is there any evidence of
incoherence or misalignment
with EU policies?
1.15.4. To what extent did the
Authority work cooperatively
with DG EMPL and other
Commission services and
how?
1.15.5. What are good practices /
lessons learned?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Correspondence between Authority’s work
programmes and relevant EU labour policies
(as per ELA’s programming documents)
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the Authority was aligned with and supported
EU policies
Stakeholders’ views on overlaps
duplications which can be avoided
or
Evidence / examples of collaboration between
the Authority and relevant Commission
services
Authority staff / management / Commission
staff views on the degree to which the
Authority and the Commission worked
together cooperatively
Authority staff / management / Commission
staff suggestions of ways in which
cooperation could improve
Stakeholders’ views on identified
practices / lessons learned
good
1.16.
To what extent were the
mandate and activities
of the European Labour
Authority coherent with
the
other
EMPL
agencies or EU bodies?
Were
there
any
1.16.1. Were
there
any
inconsistencies
or
contradictions
in
the
mandates and/or activities of
the Authority and other EMPL
agencies (i.e. Eurofound,
Cedefop, ETF and EU-
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence/examples
of
overlaps
or
contradictions between the programming
documents of the Authority and other EMPL
agencies
The mandates and
activities
of
the
Authority and DG EMPL
agencies
and
EU
bodies were coherent,
there
were
no
ELA Regulation
Surveys
Interviews
Public consultation
104
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0107.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
unnecessary overlaps
or duplications
Data sources / analytical
approach
unnecessary overlaps or
duplications?
OSHA) or activities of the
agencies?
1.16.2. Were there any overlaps or
unnecessary duplications in
the mandates or activities of
the Authority and other EMPL
agencies or EU bodies? If so,
what caused these?
Number of MoUs/SLAs signed between ELA
and other EMPL agencies/bodies
Stakeholders’ views on complementarity /
reinforcement / working together
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the work of the Authority and other EMPL
agencies
or
EU
bodies
is
complementary/does not overlap
1.17.
To what extent does the
European
Labour
Authority
work with the
other EMPL agencies
where needed? To what
extent
have
they
developed
cooperation
mechanisms
among
themselves during the
evaluation period?
1.17.1. To what extent did the
Authority build synergies with
other EMPL agencies (i.e.
Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF
and EU-OSHA) and work
together (e.g. joint projects)?
1.17.2. Did their cooperation work
optimally? Why or why not?
1.17.3. Was there a change in the
degree to which the Authority
and other EMPL agencies
cooperated during the period
under review? Why or why
not?
1.17.4. Are there any good practice
examples or lessons to be
learned
to
improve
cooperation
and
complementarity
in
the
future?
Output indicator - quantitative:
Number of collaboration agreements or MoUs
signed between the Authority and other EMPL
agencies
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence/examples of joint activities between
the Authority and other EMPL agencies
Evidence/examples of overlapping ELA’s
activities/initiatives/studies/reports
with
respect to other EMPL agencies
Stakeholders’
views
on
reinforced
collaboration/ synergies being actively sought
during the 2019-2023 period
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the ELA and other agencies worked together
optimally
Stakeholder suggestions of ways in which
collaboration could improve
The ELA and other
Agencies
worked
cooperatively with each
other where needed
Results from the “Study
supporting the evaluation of
EU agencies: Eurofound,
Cedefop, ETF and EU-
OSHA”
ELA Regulation
Collaboration agreements /
MoUs
Interviews
Surveys
Public consultation
105
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0108.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’ views on good practices /
lessons learned
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
1.18.
To what extent is the
mandate and activities of
the European Labour
Authority coherent with
those
of
other
EU
decentralised agencies?
To what extent does the
Authority
work
cooperatively with other
EU Agencies? To what
extent is the performance
measurement system of
the Authority in line with
the one of other relevant
EU agencies?
1.18.1. Were
there
any
inconsistencies
or
contradictions
in
the
mandates and activities of
the Authority and other
relevant EU decentralised
agencies? If so, what caused
these?
1.18.2. Were there any overlaps or
unnecessary duplications in
the mandates and activities
of the Authority and other
relevant EU decentralised
agencies? If so, what caused
these?
1.18.3. To what extent did the
Authority build synergies and
cooperate with other relevant
EU decentralised agencies?
1.18.4. Did their cooperation work
optimally? Why or why not?
1.18.5. Are there any good practice
examples or lessons to be
learned
to
improve
cooperation
and
complementarity
in
the
future?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence / examples of overlaps or
contradictions between the Authority and
other agencies
Evidence / examples of complementarity /
reinforcement / working together / synergies
Number of collaboration agreements between
the Authority and other agencies
Evidence/examples of joint activities between
the Authority and other EU agencies
Evidence/examples
of
reinforced
collaboration during the 2019-2023 period
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the
Authority’s
activities
were
complementary/did not overlap with the ones
of other EU decentralised agencies
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the Authority’s cooperation with other
agencies was optimal
Stakeholder suggestions of ways in which
collaboration could improve
Stakeholders’ views on good practices /
lessons learned
The mandates and
activities
of
the
Authority was coherent,
there
were
no
unnecessary overlaps
or duplications
Legal bases of the Authority
and agencies
Collaboration agreements /
MoUs
Interviews
Surveys
Public consultation
106
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0109.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
The
mandate
and
activities
of
the
Authority was coherent
with those of other
relevant organisations
and stakeholders
The Authority worked
cooperatively
with
relevant organisations
and stakeholders
Data sources / analytical
approach
Collaboration agreements /
MoUs
ELA Regulation
Relevant
documents
of
observed organisations and
stakeholders
Surveys
Interviews
Public consultation
1.19.
To what extent are the
mandates and activities of
the European Labour
Authority coherent with
those of other relevant
organisations
and
stakeholders
(at
EU,
international and national
level)? To what extent
does the Authority work
cooperatively with those
organisations
and
stakeholders? To what
extent is such cooperation
established
with
all
relevant organisations and
stakeholders?
How
well
was
the
Authority embedded in the
broader
EU
policy
governance structures for
its
respective
activity
domains, and is there
room
for
improving
coherence and efficiency?
1.20.
1.19.1. Which other EU / national /
international
level
organisations
and
stakeholders implemented
activities similar to those of
the Authority?
1.19.2. To what extent was the
Authority and its activities
coherent with those of other
relevant organisations and
stakeholders?
1.19.3. To
what
extent
were
synergies
sought
and
exploited?
1.19.4. In case of shortcomings,
what factors explain these?
1.19.5. Are
there
noteworthy
differences across relevant
other organisations and
stakeholders? If so, why?
1.20.1. How did the work of the
Authority feed into EU policy
governance (e.g. European
Semester)?
1.20.2. Were
there
any
shortcomings? If so, what
were they and what caused
them?
1.20.3. Is there scope for improved
coherence
or
efficiency
gains? Why and how?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence / examples of collaboration between
the Authority and other international
organisations / stakeholders
Evidence / examples of joint activities
between the Authority and other national
organisations / stakeholders
Stakeholders’ suggestions of ways in which
cooperation could be improved
Result indicators - qualitative:
Correspondence between the Authority’s
outputs and EU policy governance structures
Stakeholders’ suggestions on ways
improve efficiency and coherence
to
The
Authority
was
embedded
in
the
broader
EU
policy
governance structures
for their respective
activity domains
There is no scope for
efficiency or coherence
gains
EU policy documents and
legislation
ELA governance documents
Interviews
107
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0110.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
2. How did the Authority make a difference and to whom?
EU added value
2.1.
What was the added value
of the European Labour
Authority at EU level
during the evaluation
period? To what extent did
its achievements add
value in terms of volume,
scope, process, and role
effects
220
?
2.1.1.
To what extent did the
Authority add to, or support,
existing actions or policy
areas at different levels?
(volume effect)
To what extent did the
Authority broaden existing
actions by supporting groups
or policy areas that would not
have
received
support
otherwise? (scope effects)
To what extent did the
Authority broaden existing
actions by supporting groups
or policy areas that would not
have
received
support
otherwise? (scope effects)
To what extent did the
Authority support innovations
that have been taken up at
national level or national
innovative actions that are
then mainstreamed? (role
effects)
To what extent did the
Authority influence Member
Result indicators - qualitative:
Examples of volume, scope, role and/or
process effects of the Authority
Stakeholders’ views on the feasibility of
alternative approaches to achieve the same /
comparable results
Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the
same results could have been achieved
without EU intervention
The Authority provided
added value that would
not exist in their
absence
Evidence from all other EQs
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop
partners
Case studies
Public consultation
with
social
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
2.1.4.
2.1.5.
220
Volume effects are observed when an intervention adds to or supports existing actions; Scope effects are observed when an intervention broadens the reach or scope of existing actions;
Role effects are observed when lessons learnt from the implementation of an intervention are applied elsewhere; Process effects are observed when an intervention leads to a change
in operational processes.
108
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0111.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
2.2.
To which groups of
stakeholders concretely
did the Authority’s work
make a difference?
2.2.1.
2.2.2.
State administrations and
organisations involve in the
Authority’s actions? (process
effects)
Which stakeholders were
most impacted by the
Authority and how?
To what extent did the
benefits brought about by the
Authority trickle down to the
level of individual citizens
(where relevant)?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Degree of use of the outputs of the Authority
per stakeholder group (EQ 1.3)
Degree of use of the outputs of the Authority
per task (e.g. mediation, cooperation, risk
analysis, etc.)
Stakeholder views on the degree to which the
Authority made a difference to them / to other
stakeholder groups
N/A,
question
descriptive
Results from all other
evaluation questions (notably
on relevance & effectiveness)
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop with
social partners
Public consultation
EU-level
3. Is the Authority’s work still relevant?
Relevance
3.1.
To what extent did the
European
Labour
Authority
mandate,
objectives and activities
fulfil EU policy needs and
those
of
relevant
stakeholders during the
evaluation period?
3.1.1.
To what extent were the
Authority’s
mandate,
objectives and activities
relevant to fulfil EU policy
needs?
To what extent were the
Authority’s
mandate,
objectives and activities
relevant to fulfil stakeholder
needs?
Were
the
mandates,
objectives and activities
complete? Were there any
gaps not covered by the
Result indicators - qualitative:
Evidence / examples of use of the Authority
outputs (for EU policy and by other
stakeholders, EQ 1.3)
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the work of the Authority met EU policy needs
/ the needs of stakeholders
The
Authority’s
mandates, objectives
and activities were
relevant to fulfil EU
policy needs / the needs
of stakeholders
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Work programmes / planning
documents
Results from other evaluation
questions (i.e., effectiveness)
Surveys
Interviews
Workshop with
social partners
EU-level
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
109
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0112.png
Evaluation question
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Case studies
Public consultation
Authority that should have
been? Which ones and why?
3.2.
To what extent are the
European
Labour
Authority mandate and
activities still relevant, and
has that been affected by
the COVID-19 pandemic
and the Ukrainian crisis
(where pertinent)?
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
Was the relevance of the
Authority’s
mandate,
objectives and activities
affected
by
unforeseen
challenges like COVID-19
and the Ukrainian crisis? If
so, how?
What mitigating actions
were taken and were these
successful?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Results from EQ 1.4, 1.8
Identified challenges that emerged during
2019-2023 that affected the work of the
Authority
Evidence / examples of how the Authority
dealt with these challenges
Stakeholders’ views on the degree to which
the Authority was able to adapt flexibly to
these challenges
Result indicators - qualitative:
Results from EQ 3.1,3.2,3.4 (Relevance)
Stakeholders’ views on the need to adapt
mandate, and what needs to be adapted
The
mandate,
objectives and activities
of the Authority are still
relevant
and
were
sufficiently flexible to
respond to unforeseen
challenges
Consolidated Annual Activity
Report (2019-2021)
Work programmes / planning
documents
Results from other evaluation
questions (i.e., effectiveness)
Interviews
Public consultation
3.3.
To what extent is there a
need to amend the
mandate of the European
Labour Authority? If yes,
what would be the
financial implications?
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
In light of the (continued)
relevance of the mandates,
objectives and activities of
the Authority, is there a need
for amendments?
If so, what would the financial
implications of a change in
mandates be?
N/A,
question
explorative
Interviews
3.4.
In terms of foresight, are
there any future trends
including
megatrends
(such as demographic
change, migration, etc.)
that could affect the
European
Labour
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
What trends can be expected
to
influence
the
mandates/work
of
the
Authority in the future? How?
To what extent is the
Authority prepared to deal
with these and how?
Result indicators - qualitative:
Identified (future) trends that may impact the
work of the Authority
Assessment of the preparedness of the
Authority to deal with the future trends /
challenges
The
Authority
is
prepared to cope with
future
trends
/
challenges
EU policy documents and
legislation
Work programmes / planning
documents
Surveys
110
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0113.png
Evaluation question
Authority’s
future
relevance and how?
Operationalised questions
Indicators/descriptors
Stakeholders’ views on potential (future)
trends that may impact the work of the
Authority and how it would be impacted
Norms/Judgement
criteria
Data sources / analytical
approach
Interviews
Workshop with
social partners
Public consultation
EU-level
111
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0114.png
A
NNEX
IV. O
VERVIEW OF
B
ENEFITS AND
C
OSTS
The table below presents an overview of the costs and benefits identified within the scope of this study. The founding Regulation of ELA primarily imposes
rules on the ELA itself, delineating tasks and responsibilities for its operations. Predominantly, the costs associated with compliance to the Regulation are
borne by ELA, funded through the EU Budget. Citizens and businesses are not expected to bear costs as the Regulation does not directly impose obligations
on them. Therefore, the table focuses on direct costs, which are borne by the authority itself. These costs represent the commitments made by ELA in each
year and for different activities and are taken from the Annual Accounts and Annual Activity Reports of ELA. Regarding the staff costs per activity, this
was not directly provided in the documents, but was calculated by the study team. To do this, average basic salaries and allowances were used for the
different types of employees (contract agents, temporary agents and SNEs as well as the division of FTEs over the different activities was used (based on
SPDs data) to calculate the staff costs per activity.
The potential (indirect) benefits could theoretically extend to all actors, including companies and citizens. However, it is not feasible to identify and quantify
how ELA’s activities eventually have an impact on downstream markets. The table therefore focusses on direct benefits incurred by the direct users of
ELA’s outputs, resulting from the stakeholder questionnaire carried out in this evaluation. These are the organisations that made use of the outputs produced
by ELA, such as national institutions/agencies, employer organisations, trade unions, research institutions, etc. Next to this, organisations that are working
together with ELA in certain tasks such as other European agencies, National Coordination Offices, EU networks, etc. also fall under this category.
Given the nature of this evaluation and the constraints imposed by the available data, we have chosen to compile a table that aligns more closely with the
methodology employed in the evaluation of the other four decentralized agencies under the remit of DG Employment. For comparative purposes and to
ensure comprehensive reporting, we have also included a table that more closely adheres to the format specified in the Better Regulation Guidelines.
112
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0115.png
Table 1. Costs
of ELA’s activities and benefits over time
Total
Activities
within
EURES task
Activities
within
Information
and services
task
Activities
within CJI
task
Activities
within
Analysis and
Risk ass.
task
Activities
within
Cooperatio
n task
Activities
within
Tackling
Undeclared
Work task
Activities
within
Mediation
task
Capacity
Building
Activities
Direct costs (borne by the authority)
Total expenditure
of the authority
2019
1.9m
2019
no
data
no
data
8.2m
12m
2019
no data
2019
no
data
no
data
1.3m
2.2m
Total costs per activity (operational + staff)
2019
no data
2019
no
data
no
data
0.8m
1.9m
2019
no
data
no
data
1.5m
0.6m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.2m
0.5m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.3m
1.7m
2020
12.3m
2020
2020
no data
2020
2020
no data
2020
2020
2020
2020
2021
2022
21.4m
33.5m
2021
2022
2021
2022
1.6m
1.4m
2021
2022
2021
2022
0.2m
0.9m
2021
2022
2021
2022
2021
2022
2021
2022
Total operational
costs
2019
0.5m
2019
no
costs
5.5m
2019
no
costs
no
costs
1.1m
2019
no
costs
0.3m
Operational costs per activity
2019
no
costs
0.1m
2019
no
costs
no
costs
0.4m
2019
no
costs
0.1m
2019
no
costs
no
costs
0.1m
2019
no
costs
no
costs
0.1m
2020
6m
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2021
12.2m
2021
8m
2021
2021
0.8m
2021
<0.1m
2021
2021
1.4m
2021
2021
2022
18.1m
2022
11.6m
2022
0.9m
2022
1.5m
2022
0.6m
2022
0.4m
2022
0.4m
2022
0.4m
2022
1.2m
113
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0116.png
Total staff costs
2019
0.4m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.2m
0.5m
2019
no data
2019
no
data
no
data
0.5m
0.6m
2019
Staff costs per activity
no data
2019
no
data
no
data
0.5m
1.5m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.2m
0.2m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.1m
0.2m
2019
no
data
no
data
0.2m
0.4m
2020
3.1m
2020
2020
no data
2020
2020
no data
2020
2020
2020
2020
2021
2022
6.5m
11.1m
2021
2022
2021
2022
0.6m
0.6m
2021
2022
2021
2022
0.2m
0.3m
2021
2022
2021
2022
2021
2022
2021
2022
Total
administrative
costs
2019
2020
2021
2022
1m
3.3m
2.7m
4.3m
Direct benefits (to users of the authorities’ outputs)
Stakeholder
rating of cost-
effectiveness of
the authority
EURES portal
Provision of
information on
labour
mobility/social
security
coordination
In 2021, a total of
6 support actions
were
implemented,
with 4 dedicated
to seasonal work
ELA's support
to MS in
relation to CJI
Availability of
monitoring and
statistical data
Cooperation
and
information
exchange
activities
Quality of
materials and
events
Support
provided by
ELA through
mediation
Workshops
and Trainings
provided by
ELA
42% of
stakeholders
indicated that the
benefits of ELA's
outputs outweigh
the costs to a
The portal
experienced
significant user
engagement,
with around
63,000
The number of
cross-border
inspection with
the assistance
of ELA
increased from
44% of
stakeholders
found the
availability of
timely and
complete data to
The number of
resolved
requests for
information by
Member States
increased from
Between May
2021 and Q2
2023, the
European
Platform under
ELA produced
Four mediation
cases between
2019 and 2023.
Only one was
successful.
At least 14
workshops,
training
sessions, and
staff exchanges
from 2020 to
114
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0117.png
great extent, 35%
to a moderate
extent, 12% to a
small extent and
12% stated that
the benefits are
lower than the
costs (N=121)
jobseeker
registrations in
2021, dropping
to 14,700 in
2022. The
number of
individuals
transferred
through
coordinated
channels to the
portal increased
from 680,000 in
2021 to 1.2
million in 2022.
The portal saw
a decrease in
employer
registrations
from 6,973 in
2021 to 5,733 in
2022, and
unique visitors
decreased from
3.7 million in
2021 to 3.4
million in 2022.
Job vacancies
posted surged
from 9.5 million
in 2021 to 30
million in 2022,
with 18.6 million
vacancies
reported in the
first half of
2023.
54% of
stakeholders
found the
functionalities
and information
on the EURES
portal to be very
useful, 26%
moderately
useful, 2% not
and 2 focusing
on road
transport. The
following year,
2022, saw a
significant
increase, with 20
support actions
launched; 9 of
which target road
transport, while
the remaining 11
addressed
various other
sectors including
construction.
During the first
semester of
2023, 8 support
actions were
carried out,
evenly split
between
construction and
other sectors,
with 4 actions
each.
59% of
stakeholders
found the
provision of
information to be
very useful, 33%
moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
4% did not know
(N=124)
5 in 2020, to 10
in 2021, to 33 in
2022. In 2022, a
total of 25
Member States
were involved in
the CJI's.
64% of
stakeholders
found the
support of ELA
in the
communication
between MS to
be very useful,
25% moderately
useful, 0% not
useful at all, and
10% did not
know (N=67)
be very useful,
38% moderately
useful, 1% not
useful at all, and
15% did not know
(N=80)
12 in 2020 to 87
in 2021 and to
104 in 2022.
60% of
stakeholders
found the
cooperation and
exchange
activities to be
very useful,
31% moderately
useful, 0% not
useful at all, and
9% did not know
(N=67)
8 learning
resource
papers, 17 good
practice s
covering, 4
seminars and 4
thematic review
workshops, 4
peer learning
dialogues, 1
webinar on the
road transport
sector, and 3
output papers.
55% of
stakeholders
found the quality
of the materials,
tools and events
to be very
useful, 32%
moderately
useful, 1% not
useful at all and
12% did not
know (N=82)
48% of
stakeholders
found the
support
provided by ELA
through
mediation to be
very useful,
27% moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
21% did not
know (N=33)
2023. There
were two
editions
launched for a
call for good
practises.
Around 70% of
stakeholder
found both the
workshops as
well as the
trainings to be
very useful,
20% moderately
useful, 1% not
useful at all,
and 9% did not
know (N=86)
115
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0118.png
useful at all,
and 18% did
not know
(N=85)
EURES
Network
Targeted
workshops
Available
guidelines,
templates and
procedures
Quality and
relevance of
topics analysed
Availability of a
directory of
National
Contact Points
Topics
explored
during
Platform
events
51% of
stakeholders
found the topics
explored on
Platform events
to be very
useful, 34%
moderately
useful, 2% not
useful at all and
12% did not
know (N=82)
Materials,
guidelines
tools
53% of
stakeholders
found the
services related
to the
governance of
the EURES
Network by ELA
to be very
useful, 26%
moderately
useful, 2% not
useful at all,
and 19% did
not know
(N=85)
60% of
stakeholders
found the
targeted
workshops
organised by
ELA to be very
useful, 33%
moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
4% did not know
(N=124)
Regular updates
on guidelines
and procedures
are reported
each year from
2020 onwards,
with additional
tools and
bulletins
produced in
2021 and 2022.
48% of
stakeholders
found the
guidelines,
templates, and
procedures
produced by
ELA to be very
useful, 37%
moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
12% did not
know (N=67)
Both regarding
quality as well as
relevance roughly
40% of
stakeholders
found this very
useful, 40%
moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
17% did not know
(N=80)
In 2020, the
ELA
successfully
created a
directory of
National
Contact Points
(NCPs).
39% of
stakeholders
found the
availability of a
directory of
National
Contact Points
to be very
useful, 40%
moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
18% did not
know (N=67)
In 2022, ELA
conducted four
training
sessions aimed
at mediators,
experts, and
Member State
representatives
to enhance
understanding
and
implementation
of the mediation
procedures.
Additionally,
ELA produced
several
communication
materials,
including an
FAQs
document, a
video, and a
leaflet to provide
clear
information
about the
mediation
process, all
published on its
website in 2022.
58% of
stakeholders
found the
availability of
116
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0119.png
materials,
guidelines and
tools provided
by ELA
regarding
mediation to be
very useful,
27% moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
12% did not
know (N=33)
EURES
Trainings
Translation of
information
Risk
assessment
activities in
supporting CJI's
At least 10
significant
analytical reports,
mappings, and
manuals
produced
between 2020
and 2023.
39% of
stakeholders
found the risk
assessment
related to CJI's
produced by ELA
to be very useful,
40% moderately
useful, 3% not
useful at all, and
18% did not know
(N=67)
Exchange with
other national
authorities
In total 69
training
sessions were
delivered by
ELA,
surpassing the
target of 60.
55% of
stakeholders
found the
EURES
trainings
organised by
ELA to be very
useful, 19%
moderately
useful, 2% not
useful at all,
and 25% did
not know
(N=85)
In the period
2020-2023Q2,
roughly 600
documents have
been translated
via the
Translation
Facility launched
by ELA. The cost
per translated
document
decreased over
time.
61% of
stakeholders
found the
translation
activities
organised by
ELA to be very
useful, 24%
moderately
useful, 5% not
useful at all, and
10% did not
know (N=124)
There were 15
staff exchanges
with other
national
authorities in
2022.
68% of
stakeholders
found ELA's role
in the exchange
with other
national
authorities
concerning
undeclared work
to be very
useful, 18%
moderately
useful, 2% not
useful at all and
11% did not
know (N=82)
117
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0120.png
European Job
Days
Communication
and
dissemination
The 2022
campaign,
#Road2FairTransp
ort, centered on
road transport,
achieved over 9
million video
views, reached
15.8 million people
through outdoor
advertising, and
accumulated over
125 million online
impressions. That
same year, a
smaller campaign,
#StandWithUkrain
e, was also
conducted,
although reach data
is not available. In
2023, preparatory
work began for a
campaign focusing
on the construction
sector, with reach
data not yet
applicable.
50% of
stakeholder
found the
communication
and
dissemination
activities of ELA
(e.g. information
campaigns) to be
very useful, 39%
moderately
useful, 4% not
useful at all and
In 2021, there
were 28 events
organized. This
number
increased
significantly in
2022, with 44
events—a 57%
rise from the
previous year.
In the first half
of 2023, 12
events were
held.
Regarding
participation
reach between
2021 and 2022,
there was a
53% increase in
the number of
jobseekers
reached and a
30% increase in
the number of
employers
engaged.
49% of
stakeholders
found the Job
Days very
useful, 25%
moderately
useful, 1% not
useful at all,
and 25% did
not know
(N=85)
118
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0121.png
7% did not know
(N=124)
EURES
communicatio
n activities
49% of
stakeholders
found the
EURES
communication
activities carried
out by ELA very
useful, 32%
moderately
useful, 2% not
useful at all,
and 16% did
not know
(N=85)
119
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
The table presented below aligns with Tool #49 of the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG). This table exclusively considers costs and benefits classified
as 'incremental' in accordance with the BRG. Incremental costs and benefits are those arising solely as a consequence of the European Labour Authority
(ELA)/the Regulation, and which would not have occurred otherwise. It is important to note that establishing a baseline scenario presents significant
challenges, as evidenced in the cost-effectiveness analysis detailed in Annex V. This limitation was previously acknowledged in the impact assessment of
ELA, which similarly lacked a robust baseline for costs and benefits. Consequently, the table herein includes only those benefits that can be definitively
categorized as incremental based on the findings of this study.
The content of this table largely aligns with the findings from the cost-effectiveness analysis. As a result, some activities demonstrate more benefits than
others. In certain instances, there was insufficient data to draw conclusions about benefits, or the study revealed minimal to no benefits. A few examples
are provided in the following bullet points, to illustrate how this table was filled out:
•
Regarding EURES the study highlighted persistent issues with the transfer of the management of ECO and of the EURES portal system ownership
to ELA. While the EURES portal and network naturally continue to produce outputs and achieve results, the study does not identify that the transfer
to ELA brought significant added value. In fact, most indicators relevant to EURES are declining. Consequently, the table does not contain benefits
specifically attached to the EURES Portal. The study does show some positive developments concerning the European (online) job days compared
to the period before ELA.
Regarding the Platform tackling undeclared work, which, like EURES, predates ELA, the study demonstrated that the integration of the Platform
into ELA was successful and provided added value (although there is still room for improvement).
As for Analysis and Risk assessment, there is a lack of concrete indicators to measure benefits. Furthermore, low prioritisation of this task in the
initial years resulted in a low number of outputs. Both issues made it very hard to identify benefits specifically for this task.
•
•
120
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0123.png
Table 2.
Costs and benefits of ELA’s activities for different target groups
Other (businesses/citizens)
Quantitative
EURES
Cost: Managing the
ECO of EURES and
being the business
owner of the EURES
portal
Qualitative
ELA Stakeholders
Quantitative
Qualitative
Administrations (ELA/EU Budget)
Quantitative
Qualitative
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 8.2 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 12 MEUR
Benefit: Increasing
number of people
reached at EURES
events
Recurrent
Improved
efficiency
More than 45,000
jobseekers reached
at EURES events in
2022, increase of
53% compared to
2021. Almost 2000
employers reached
at EURES events in
2022, increase of
30% compared to
2021. The number
of
individuals
reached per event
increased slightly
market compared to the
period 2018-2019.
EURES
events
are
generally beneficial for
jobseekers/employers
as
they meet potential new
employers/
No
quantitative
employees.
estimates available
The
majority
of
stakeholders
that
responded to the survey
indicated that the EURES
Job Days were very This benefit is not This benefit is not
useful.
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Information and services
Cost:
Providing
access
to
information
and
services
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 1.6 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 1.4 MEUR
Recurrent
Compliance costs
121
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0124.png
Recurrent
Benefit:
New
translation facility
Improved
wellbeing
From 2019 to Q2 of
2023, more than
600
documents
were translated by
the
Translation
Facility. Between
2020 and 2021, the
This benefit is not
cost per translated
relevant to this This benefit is not relevant document
actor
to this actor
decreased.
Stakeholders emphasize
the significance of this
task,
particularly
highlighting the value of
the Translation Facility.
More than 60% of the
respondents to the survey
to stakeholders finds the This benefit is not This benefit is not
translations very useful. relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Cooperation and exchange of information between Member States
Cost: Facilitate cooperation
and
exchange
of
Recurrent
information
between
Member States
Compliance costs
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 0.8 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 1.9 MEUR
Stakeholders
are
generally positive about
the
effective
development
and
operation of this task,
with the distinctive role
of NLOs acknowledged This benefit is not This benefit is not
as crucial.
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Recurrent
Benefit: Increasing number
of (resolved) requests for
Increased
information by MS
efficiency
In 2020, ELA
resolved
12
requests from MS,
in 2021, 87 requests
were resolved and
This benefit is not
in
2022,
104
market relevant to this This benefit is not relevant requests
were
actor
to this actor
resolved.
Recurrent
Benefit: More collaboration
among Member States on
Increased
labour mobility issues
efficiency
Numerous stakeholders
highlighted
the
significance
of
collaboration
among
Member States on labour
This benefit is not
mobility issues as a key
market relevant to this This benefit is not relevant No
quantitative added value brought by This benefit is not This benefit is not
actor
to this actor
estimates available ELA
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Concerted and Joint inspections
Cost:
Coordinate
and
support
concerted and joint
inspections in the
areas within the
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 1.3 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 2.2 MEUR
122
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0125.png
Authority’s
competence
The number of
cross
border
inspections
and
Member
States
involved increased
significantly over
the years.
2020: 5 inspections,
3 MS
2021:
10
inspections, 11 MS
2022:
33
inspections, 26 MS
2023 (only Q1 and
Q2):
36
inspections, 25 MS.
Benefit:
High
number
of
inspections carried
out and high number
of MS participating
in
inspections
compared
to
situation
before
ELA
Recurrent
Increased
efficiency
More concerted and joint
inspections eventually lead
to a better performing
market No
quantitative European Labour Market,
estimates available benefitting society.
Before ELA, the number
of
Member
States
participating in cross-
border inspections was
quite low. Increasing
number of MS involved
indicates more benefit This benefit is not This benefit is not
due to ELA’s role.
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Before ELA, significant
gaps existed in the
conduct of cross-border
inspections
between
countries that did not
border each other. Since
ELA, these types of
inspections (with non-
neighbouring countries) This benefit is not This benefit is not
increased.
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Benefit: Broadened
perspective
of
concerted and joint
inspections
Recurrent
Increased
efficiency
More countries involved in
concerted
and
joint
inspections eventually lead
to a better performing
market No
quantitative European Labour Market,
estimates available benefitting society.
In the majority of
the inspections, the
host and observing
countries were not
neighbouring each
other.
Analysis and risk assessments
Cost: Assess risks
and
carry
out
analyses regarding
labour mobility and
social
security
coordination across
the EU
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 0.2 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 0.9 MEUR
123
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0126.png
Benefits: N/A
Capacity Building
Cost:
Support
Member States with
capacity building
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Because of lack of data and low prioritisation of this task, this study did not identify significant benefits stemming from this task.
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 0.3 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 1.7 MEUR
Around 70% of
stakeholders
indicate that the
workshops
and
trainings
This benefit is not
implemented
by
relevant to this This benefit is not relevant ELA are very
actor
to this actor
useful.
Benefit: Usefulness
of workshops and
trainings provided
by ELA very high
Recurrent
Improved
wellbeing
This benefit is not This benefit is not
relevant to this actor
relevant to this actor
Tackling undeclared work
Cost: Support to
Member States in
tackling undeclared
work
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 1.5 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 0.6 MEUR
Stakeholders
express
satisfaction with the
maintenance
and
relatively
unchanged
nature of the platform.
However, more synergies
should
be
sought
between other ELA
No
quantitative activities, notably in the
estimates available realm of inspections.
Stakeholders
express
satisfaction with the
maintenance
and
relatively
unchanged
nature of the platform.
However,
more
synergies should be
sought between other
ELA activities, notably
No quantitative estimates in
the
realm
of
available
inspections.
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Benefit: Integration
of the platform into
ELA
Mediation
Cost: Facilitate a
solution in the case
of a dispute between
Recurrent
Improved
efficiency
Although there is no direct
evidence gathered in this
study, theoretically a well-
functioning platform should
market No
quantitative lead to improvements in the
estimates available EU labour market.
Recurrent
Compliance costs
Total costs (operational +
This cost is not
This cost is not
staff):
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021: 0.2 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022: 0.5 MEUR
124
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0127.png
two
or
more
Member States
Although the number of
Although the number of
mediation processes has
mediation processes has
been limited in the
been limited in the
evaluation period, the
evaluation period, the
infrastructure
for
infrastructure
for
This benefit is not
mediation processes is in
mediation processes is in
market relevant to this This benefit is not relevant No
quantitative place, which could lead No quantitative estimates place, which could lead
actor
to this actor
estimates available to future benefits.
available
to future benefits.
Benefit:
Infrastructure
in
place for mediation
processes
Governance
Recurrent
Improved
efficiency
Administrative costs
Recurrent
Compliance costs
2019: 1 MEUR
This cost is not
This cost is not
2020: 3.3 MEUR
relevant to this This cost is not relevant to relevant to this This cost is not relevant 2021 : 2.7 MEUR
actor
this actor
actor
to this actor
2022 : 4.3 MEUR
125
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0128.png
A
NNEX
V. S
TAKEHOLDERS
C
ONSULTATION
- S
YNOPSIS
R
EPORT
1.
Introduction
This report provides an overview of all consultation activities and the input received through
the call for evidence, which supported the evaluation study of the European Labour Authority
(ELA).
The report is structured as follows:
Part 2 presents an overview of the consultation strategy.
Part 3 provides information on the consultation activities, including the approach taken for
dissemination, as well as the sample size, and the strengths and limitations of each consultation.
Part 4 consolidates and discusses the findings of the consultation activities across the five
evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU-added value.
2.
Overview of stakeholder consultation strategy
The purpose of the consultation activities was to supplement the information gathered through
the desk research, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the case studies. The list of stakeholders
consulted included the following categories: European Commission and ELA; National
authorities; Social partners; International organisations; EU-level research organisations and
EU-level networks in the field of labour mobility and social security; Broader public, other
interested persons or organisations.
Several data collection tools were used:
two online surveys, in-depth interviews,
a
public
consultation,
and a
workshop with social partners.
Additionally, the input gathered by the
Commission though the
Call for Evidence
221
was considered. Overall, the consultation strategy
met the General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the
Commission.
3.
Method
Online surveys
The online surveys gathered data from a wide sample of stakeholders, which fed into the
analysis of all evaluation criteria.
One survey targeting ELA staff and Management Board;
One survey targeting ELA stakeholders
at both national and EU level, namely: EU
institutions (i.e., relevant DGs, relevant European Parliament and Council committees) and
relevant agencies (in particular the Agencies with which the Founding Regulation of ELA
221
European Commission (2023-2024). Have your Say Portal: European Labour Authority – 2024 evaluation,
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-European-Labour-Authority-
2024-evaluation_en
126
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0129.png
foresees the establishment of cooperation agreements
222
); ELA national counterparts (i.e.,
labour and social security authorities including relevant ministries, labour inspectorates,
national labour courts, public employment services); EU level Social partners; International
organisations.
Table 1. Surveys' response rates
Survey to ELA Staff and
Management Board
Complete entries
Partially complete entries
85
17
Survey to ELA stakeholders
205
64
Both surveys were uploaded and distributed through Ramboll’s
223
proprietary survey
software SurveyXact
224
. The surveys remained open for 25 days (from October 13
th
until
November 7
th
, 2023). To facilitate completion, participants were provided with a functional
email address and encouraged to contact the project team in case of questions or doubts,
including questions of interpretation. Once the surveys were closed, the corresponding datasets
were exported into Excel. The analysis of the results was based on a three-step process of 1)
data management; 2) quantitative analysis / descriptive statistical analysis; 3) Qualitative
coding analysis with the text-analysis software NVivo® allowed to systematically analyse and
process qualitative data.
ELA stakeholders survey: respondent’s profile
A total of
205 complete questionnaires
were received. In terms of place of work, respondents
working for national ministries are the largest group of respondents (23.4%). Together with
respondents working for national public employment services and national labour inspectorates,
they represent over 61% of the total number of respondents. Respondents who selected the
‘other’ categories indicated working for, inter alia, permanent representations, customs
authorities, equality bodies, regional public employment services, police units, and national
SOLVIT centres. From a geographical point of view, Belgium is the most represented country
(13% of respondents declared working there – 26 out of 205 respondents). It is followed by
Sweden (9% - 18 out of 205 respondents) and the Netherlands (6% - 13 out of 205 respondents).
Estonia is the least represented country — only 0.5% of the total number of respondents (1 out
of 205 respondents) declared working there.
ELA staff and Management Board survey: respondent’s profile
222
The Authority shall aim in all its activities at ensuring cooperation, avoiding overlaps, promoting synergies and
complementarity with other decentralised Union agencies and specialised bodies, such as the Administrative
Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. To that end, the Authority may conclude
cooperation agreements with relevant Union agencies, such as Cedefop, Eurofound, EU-OSHA, ETF, Europol
and Eurojust.
223
Contractor in charge with delivering the supporting study for the ELA evaluation
224
http://www.surveyxact.com
127
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0130.png
A total of
85 complete questionnaires
were received. Respondents working as staff members
of ELA are the largest group of respondents (65.9% - 56 out of 85 respondents), followed by
members of the Management Board of ELA, 22.4% of the respondents (19 out of 85
respondents). Lastly, National Liaison Officers are the smallest group of respondents (11.8%
of responses – 10 out of 85 respondents). From a geographical point of view, among the
Member of the Management Board of ELA and National Liaison Officers respondents that
decided to declare their country of nationality,
Sweden and Denmark are the most
represented countries
(each counting 10% of the respondents). These are followed by
Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain (each counting 7% of the respondents).
Interviews
In total,
23 in-depth interviews
were conducted with the Authority’s key stakeholders,
including representatives from the Commission (4), ELA staff (6), Member State
representatives (10), social partners and ILO (3). Interviews were conducted after the closure
and analysis of the two surveys, which allowed us to tailor our interview questions to knowledge
gaps that emerged from the survey.
Figure 1. Number of group and one-on-one interviews conducted, by type of
stakeholder
Workshop with social partners
A workshop was conducted with
EU and national level social partners.
Discussions focused
on the degree of awareness about ELA among EU and national social partners, as well as among
workers and employers on the ground, as well as on the impact of ELA’s activities. The
workshop took place online and included eight participants, representing different sectors
(construction, transport, food and agriculture).
Public consultation
The public consultation was managed by the Commission and open to responses from anyone
who was interested (i.e. it targeted the wider public). The aim of the public consultation was to
allow a wider public to give its views concerning ELA.
128
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0131.png
Once the public consultation was closed, the raw data was downloaded from the EU survey
platform for analysis. Overall, 144 contributions to the public consultation were submitted
through the EU web-portal “Have Your Say”. In addition to these, five ad-hoc contributions
were shared via email by SGI Europe, DGB German Trade Union Confederation, the Danish
Ministry of Employment, the European Cockpit Association and the French Ministry of
Employment. Specifically, the latter consisted in a PDF version of the completed public
consultation questionnaire, hence the answers were merged with those provided through the
“Have Your Say” portal, bringing the total number of submitted questionnaires up to
145.
The
other ad-hoc contributions were analysed separately, along with seven supporting documents
uploaded by respondents with their contributions on “Have Your Say”.
Firstly, a systematic quality check of all answers received was conducted, to ensure that all
contributions were unique and not artificially created, as well as that these complied with the
Commission’s
Rules for feedback and suggestions.
This led to discarding three of the
contributions received from the analysis, for the following reasons: in the light of comments
unrelated to the scope of the Public Consultation, one of these was deemed negatively biased;
another contribution included both unrelated comments to the matter of the public consultation
and contradictory answers; finally, one contribution appeared to be grounded in a lack of
understanding of the role and mandate of the Authority, which negatively biased the answers
provided and led to unrelated comments.
It is also worth noting that two of the contributions received provided rather similar feedback
in response to the open questions of the questionnaire; the two respondents also belonged to the
same category of stakeholders (i.e., representatives of the air transport industry). This suggests
some degree of agreement/previous discussion of the responses provided. However, while some
comments were similar, the responses overall differed. For this reason, both were integrated in
the analysis.
On the basis of the quality check explained above, the total number of questionnaires considered
for the analysis was
142.
124 out of 142 responses were provided by stakeholders from across
24 Member States.
225
The
highest number of responses came from Romania
(17 out of 142),
Belgium
(16 out of 142) and
Spain
(12 out of 142). 18 responses were received from non-EU
countries.
226
Among these, the non-EU countries who provided the highest number of responses
were Turkey (5 out of 142) and Switzerland (3 out of 142). Responses to multiple-choice
questions in the were analysed through quantitative analysis/descriptive statistical analysis.
Answers to the open questions were qualitatively analysed using NVivo. 60
respondents were
public authorities
227
, 43 responded as
EU citizens,
the rest included non-EU citizens,
225
226
The 3 EU countries without any responses were Greece, Latvia and Malta.
The non-EU countries included: Turkey, Switzerland, Morocco, Angola, Bangladesh, Colombia, Ghana, Iraq,
Nepal, Norway and Pakistan.
227
30 out of 60 public authorities had a national scope, 21 had an international scope, seven a regional scope and
two a local scope.
129
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0132.png
academic/research institutions, trade unions, companies/businesses, Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs), business associations.
228
Figure 2. Distribution of responses by country of origin (n=142)
The majority of respondents (not including EU/Non-EU citizens)
229
claimed to be part of a large
(250 people or more) organisation (52 out of 93), whereas 23 respondents were part of a medium
organisation (50 to 249 employees), 13 of a small organisation (10 to 49 employees) and five
to a micro-organisation (1 to 9 employees).
Call for Evidence
The Call for Evidence
230
, opened for feedback by the Commission between 6 October 2023 and
5 January 2024, gathered 30 responses from six different stakeholder groups, notably: business
associations, trade unions, public authorities, companies or business organisations, EU citizens,
NGOs. Almost 70% (20 out of 30) of the responses came from three specific groups: Business
associations (8), Trade Unions (8), and EU Citizens (4). The figure below illustrates the
distribution of the stakeholder groups’ responses:
Stakeholder groups' distribution under the call for evidence (N=30)
Respondents who identified as “other”, i.e. did not identify as any of the categories proposed, were not further
classified.
229
All respondents were asked about the size of their organisation except for EU citizens and non-EU citizens.
230
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-European-Labour-Authority-
2024-evaluation_en
228
130
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
Validation workshop
A validation workshop was conducted to present and gather participants’ views on the
conclusions
and
lessons learnt
of the study. It took place online on 5 June 2024 and saw the
participation of nine stakeholders. These included a representative from the European
Commission, two ELA Heads of Unit, two members of ELA’s Management Board, two from
the EURES coordination group, one from the ELA working group on mediation, and one
representing the social partner. Overall, the validation focus group confirmed the conclusions
and lessons learnt of the study, thus serving as a robustness check instrument.
4.
Cross-synthesis of the results
This section highlights the main findings gathered through the different stakeholder
consultation tools. The findings in this section represent the conclusions that can be drawn from
stakeholder consultations: therefore, these findings may differ in part from the full results
presented in the main report, based on the combined assessment of stakeholder consultations
with the desk research, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the case studies.
Effectiveness
ELA’s activities were moderately useful and of rather high quality,
in the views of its staff
and Management Board members, as well as external stakeholders. Nevertheless, some areas
for improvement were identified. Specifically, 12% of ELA staff pointed out resource and
capacity constraints, particularly in areas like undeclared work and risk assessment and during
the set-up phase. Additionally, 15% of respondents to the survey to ELA staff and Management
Board members (eleven staff members of ELA, one National Liaison Officer and one member
of ELA’s Management Board) suggested improvements in the quality of information and data
management.
Despite the usefulness and the overall quality of ELA’s activities, stakeholder consultations
portrait an
unclear picture of how tangible the impact of ELA's work on individual workers
and employers was.
Although ELA undertook numerous activities to refine its outreach
strategies, social partners observed that progress was partial, with uncertainties about whether
the information effectively reached the intended audience. Social partners noted in fact that
ELA's campaigns, often conducted via social media, were measured by views and clicks, which
did not necessarily translate into meaningful engagement with the target sectors. Workers'
representatives in particular expressed concerns that information from ELA arrived late or not
at all, and was often too broad and not sector-specific. The overall picture that emerged is that
while ELA communicated effectively with cross-industry social partners at a national level, it
struggled to engage sector-specific partners.
ELA’s engagement and cooperation with national authorities varied depending on national
authorities' working practices, priorities, and expectations towards ELA. However, Member
States often faced capacity constraints that limited their participation in ELA's initiatives:
national authorities emphasised through the survey and the interviews that ELA's expectations
and activities should always consider the availability of national counterparts. In fact, one of
the aspects that clearly emerged from stakeholder consultations is the fact that
ELA’s
131
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0134.png
effectiveness is bound by the willingness of Member States to engage in/support its
activities
231
. This is particularly the case as concerns CJIs. Interviewees and respondents to the
call for evidence (trade unions, one employers' organisation and one company) stressed the
importance of involving national authorities more in ELA's cross-border work: they suggested
including not only employment and social authorities but also police, tax, and integration
authorities.
Views were mixed as concerns the competences of ELA
232
. While it was widely acknowledged
by all stakeholder groups across the different consultations that
ELA's current mandate
aligned with stakeholders' expectations,
some criticisms were noted.
ELA staff,
Management Board members, social partners and NCOs
were the more positive
stakeholder groups about the implementation of ELA’s mandate: according to them,
ELA did
not explicitly conduct activities beyond its mandate, although there are indications of a
broadening scope.
This included ELA’s involvement in the EU Talent Pool Pilot to aid those
fleeing the Ukraine war and addressing the growing issue of third-country nationals (TCNs)
working in the EU. The growing phenomenon of the posting of TCNs within the EU, at the
intersection between migration (outside the scope of ELA’s mandate) and labour, convinced
many stakeholders of the need for ELA to develop activities in that regard. Social partners (both
workers’ and employers’ representatives) were overall in favour towards the inclusion of
TCNs
within ELA’s scope:
TCNs often work alongside EU nationals, and TCNs could help address
shortages in some sectors (e.g. road transport). The Commission and some national authorities
were instead more skeptical about the inclusion of TCNs within ELA’s mandate, fearing that
the expansion of the mandate could overload the Authority, encroach on Member States'
competencies, or create duplicate structures. All in all, while a few surveyed stakeholders (one
trade union, one public authority, one academic/research institution) argued that
ELA’s
mandate should be strengthened in order to allow to enhance its enforcement role,
others
(one trade union and one employers’ organisation) argued that
ELA should keep the current
division of competences with the Member States.
Finally,
ELA’s prioritisation choices in terms of tasks appeared moderately appropriate,
according to ELA staff and Management Board members, while external stakeholders such as
national authorities lamented a prevalence of “quantity over quality” during the evaluation
period.
Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations
Consulted stakeholders broadly recognised the work carried out by ELA in the activity of
information provision to individuals, employers and social partner organisations regarding
rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility across the EU and saw great potential in the
role that the Authority could play in this area. In fact,
ELA’s information services were
considered very useful,
especially by public employment services and social partners
233
.
231
232
233
Supporting Study, Annex VI- Section 4.5.1 “Ad-hoc
contributions and supporting documents”
Supporting Study, Annex VI- Sections 4.6.1 and 5.4.1
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16
132
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0135.png
Despite the overall usefulness and quality of ELA’s work in facilitating access to information,
areas for improvement were also highlighted
234
. In the views of some social partners, there was
a
predominant emphasis in information provision on workers
rather than a balanced
consideration of workers and employers. Finally, several respondents
235
to the call for evidence
expressed concerns about ELA's information accessibility, advocating for streamlined sources
to facilitate labour mobility and ensure compliance with labour laws across Member States.
Suggestions included
establishing a central, multilingual online hub
(or an
“ELA helpdesk”
as labelled by a social partner),
launching EU-wide communication campaigns, and
strengthening ELA's role as a primary cross-border contact.
Finally, awareness levels and opinions on ELA campaigns differed, with praise for organisation
and criticism for limited reach and timing issues
236
. Both praise and criticism were equally
present across social partners, public employment services and national ministries.
Additionally, there was a call by one national ministry highlighting the need to enhance the
involvement of social partners in workshops for effective discussions among Member States
237
.
Implementation of the provisions of the EURES Regulation
EURES activities were generally found to be very useful
by stakeholders, with public
employment services being obviously the largest group of stakeholders providing an answer to
this question, as well as the group with the most positive assessment of this activity.
Nevertheless, room for improvement was stressed on the EURES Portal
238
, with social partners
and national ministries being the more vocal actors in terms of proposing solutions to improve
ELA’s effectiveness in this activity. Among the solutions provided, simplifying the registration
procedure to the Portal (one national ministry), incorporating sector-specific services and
information (one social partner), enhancing the portal's visibility and value for employers (one
social partner).
All in all,
ELA did not fully meet stakeholders’ expectations with regard to EURES.
While
working on EURES, in the views expressed by most national stakeholders, ELA primarily
emphasised information rather than matchmaking, and insufficient attention was given to the
governance of the network. Finally, another key issue highlighted by stakeholder consultations
was related to the process of handover of the EURES network and the business side of the IT
portal. According to ELA staff, such process was not smooth, partly due to the fact that the
COVID-19 pandemic made job-shadowing difficult, partly due to the fact that the IT
infrastructure of the Portal is still managed by the Commission.
Cooperation and facilitation of exchange of information between Member States
234
235
236
237
238
Supporting Study, Annex VI Section 4.6.1.1 and 5.4.1.1
Six employers’ organisations, five trade unions, three EU citizens, two public authorities, one
company/business
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 11
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 16
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 17
133
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0136.png
According to the majority of stakeholders (in particular national authorities and EU citizens),
ELA played so far an
important role in supporting cross-border coordination,
as well as a
centre of knowledge and expertise,
and in
providing training in the area of EU labour
mobility.
In line with this, the primary reasons behind respondents’ involvement in ELA’s
activities included the fact that ELA is best placed to deal with cross-border issues, an intention
to improve the quality of their work and the absence of another organisation that could cover
similar activities.
Questions about the quality of specific tools used by ELA to facilitate cooperation and exchange
of information highlighted that, according to labour inspectorates, national ministries and public
employment services,
workflow guidelines, model forms and templates, KPIs, analytical
reports, workshops and seminars appear to be more useful compared to the availability
of a directory of national contact points
239
.
Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of relevant
EU law, including facilitating concerted and joint inspections
ELA’s role in supporting CJIs
was appreciated
by
most national stakeholders (in particular,
labour inspectorates) although it was acknowledged that ELA’s enforcement powers are
limited
given the nature of ELA’s mandate. National stakeholders highlighted the catalyst role
played by ELA (and by NLOs in particular) in ensuring a smooth implementation of CJIs and
ensuring multi-lateral cooperation across several Member States.
Social partners were the most critical stakeholder group. In fact, one of the shortcomings that
emerged from stakeholder consultations consisted in social partners’ involvement into CJIs,
such as the
lack of clarity in the guidelines pertaining to case submissions
240
.
Areas for improvement, identified mostly by social partners and one national labour
inspectorate, included
a reconsideration of the costs covered by ELA
241
,
to allow more
Member States to participate. In fact, according to these two groups of stakeholders, during the
evaluation period some Member States were not actively involved due to financial and human
resource constraints at the national level. Employers’ representatives also contributed to this
perspective, stressing the need for ELA to provide administrative support to employers, as CJIs
can impose a significant administrative burden on employers.
Finally, employers’ and workers’ representatives expressed the need to have better follow-up
activities after CJIs. Communicating on numbers of infringements per se was not particularly
insightful, while sharing lessons learnt with social partners and organising training activities
(e.g. to prevent other employers from the same infringements) would increase the impact of
CJIs.
Analyses and risk assessments linked to issues of cross-border labour mobility
239
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 23
240
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Section 4.6.1.4
241
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 28 & Section 5.4.1.4
134
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0137.png
While risk assessments and analyses regarding labour mobility and social security coordination
are considered potentially one of the most important ELA’s activities, especially by the
Commission and ELA itself, the services provided by ELA
appeared to be moderately useful.
Labour inspectorates and national ministries were the more positive groups of stakeholders
about the performance of such activity, while the Commission and social partners were more
critical.
According mostly to representatives from the European Commission, ELA, EURES NCOs and
members of the Management Board, ELA focused so far excessively on analyses, rather than
on the crucial aspect of risk assessments. While
ELA interviewees argued that constraints
on personal data have limited comprehensive assessments,
the Commission’s interviewees
believed that ELA could have nonetheless conducted more general assessments. It was not
possible to provide a conclusive answer to this debate, as there is still a legal opinion pending,
based on a question raised by ELA about the extent to which analysis, risk assessment and joint
inspections can process data of individuals/companies while complying with data protection
provisions.
Suggestions for improvement, made mostly by national ministries and social partners
242
included increasing the involvement of social partners, as well as
producing more detailed
reports:
these reports could include disaggregated data at the national level, targeting the needs
of different organisations and effectively engaging with the existing literature. This would
better guide on-the-ground actions stemming from the results of these analyses.
Capacity building
ELA’s capacity building activities were considered very useful
(especially workshops and
trainings), in particular by national ministries and labour inspectorates. ELA offered various
platforms to bring Member States together, organising national events, drawing and
disseminating good practices, arranging study visits, and providing training.
ELA encountered two main
challenges
in carrying out this activity, according to ELA
interviewees:
internal coordination
(due to some overlaps of responsibilities between the
different Units tasked to work on this task) and
national resources
(busy agendas in national
administrations meant that ELA had to compete for attention).
Among the suggestions made by stakeholders external to ELA (national authorities and social
partners), possible areas for improvement were i) ensuring complementarity with national
training programmes and ii) increasing ELA’s budget for capacity building, to compensate for
the discrepancies between national labour inspectorates (in terms of budget, staffing, skills) and
improving cooperation with EU institutions.
Mediation
242
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 33
135
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0138.png
While mediation could potentially yield useful results and be an impactful activity for ELA
243
,
particularly according to public employment services and national ministries, the main finding
emerging from stakeholder consultations was that mediation
is a politically sensitive
mechanism whose effectiveness was too early to assess. Representatives from the
European Commission and ELA staff
highlighted controversies already during the Council
negotiations for the founding Regulation. In fact, ELA's mediation procedure introduced an
element of novelty, as it allows Member States to mediate when disagreements arise on the
correct application of rules in individual cases.
While ELA did the required preparatory work to implement this activity (i.e. developing
guidelines for Member States, mediators, and the Commission, along with standardised
templates), out of the three mediation cases received within the reference period of the
evaluation, only one was successful, and in the remaining two cases ELA could not proceed
given that the second Member State did not agree with the procedure. Two national authorities
interviewed explained that the reasons why they had not made use of the mediation procedure
is that they had not faced any need for it yet, suggesting that a final answer on the effectiveness
and relevance on this task may be possible only in the future.
Integration of Platform tackling undeclared work
ELA’s work in tackling undeclared work appears to be overall
very useful,
according mainly
to labour inspectorates and national ministries. Social partners
244
instead highlighted insufficient
cooperation between the Working Group on Inspections and the European Platform Tackling
Undeclared Work, expressed the need for more sectoral exchanges to address diverse
determinants of undeclared work, and emphasised the importance of integrating the Platform's
knowledge into ELA's operational objectives.
In fact, the handover of the Platform to ELA resulted in both positive and negative changes.
The main
positive changes
related to the
widening of the geographical scope
(e.g. ILO was
more involved), and to an
increase in the frequency of internal communications.
Nevertheless, some social partners and ELA staff argued that the integration of the Platform
within ELA so far did not lead to a clear vision and
synergies with other ELA activities were
limited.
Efficiency
ELA’s human and financial resources appeared to be sufficient,
according to the majority
of ELA staff and Management Board members. While both ELA staff and Management Board
members agreed on the adequacy of financial resources, 44% of ELA staff responded that
human resources were ‘not at all’ sufficient
245
, which might need to be seen in the context of
prolonged vacancies. According to 16 staff members of ELA, two National Liaison Officers
and one Member of ELA’s Management Board, staffing issues were recurrent and seen to affect
243
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Section 4.6.1.7
244
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 47
245
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 89
136
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0139.png
the quality of deliverables, causing low staff satisfaction, complications in daily operations, and
a preference for quantity over quality in organisational activities due to budget constraints.
Outsourcing is common,
and an imbalance in budget allocation (favouring information
provision over enforcement) was noted.
In fact, one of the key concerns raised during the interviews is the possibility that
ELA might
be relying too heavily on Seconded National Experts (SNEs).
Interviews with European
Commission representatives and ELA staff highlighted that the ratio of SNEs to statutory staff
is notably larger compared to other EU institutions. The
SNEs
issue, according to ELA
interviewees,
may have negatively impacted ELA’s efficiency
in some ways, mainly related
to the fact that SNEs cannot handle finances (placing a significant burden on ELA's internal
staff). Furthermore, the
high SNE ratio resulted in increased turnover, leading to
inefficiencies and loss of expertise.
The reluctance of personnel to relocate to Bratislava (also
due to the salary package offered) was also mentioned by ELA as a contributing factor to SNE-
related challenges.
On the other hand, some external stakeholders (mostly from the European Commission) argued
that ELA’s
reliance on SNEs could be an advantage in the long term
as it could bring diverse
perspectives and experiences to the organisation, enriching its opportunities for internal
knowledge transfer and skills development.
Stakeholder consultations alone did not allow to draw a final conclusion on whether ELA’s
reliance on SNEs and contractors was rather negative or positive. Nevertheless, the evidence
collected through the cost-effectiveness analysis and the desk research, as presented in the main
report, suggested that negative aspects offset the potential benefits of ELA as a lean
organisation.
ELA appeared to be moderately efficient when performing its work
246
, according to the
stakeholders external to ELA, with no significant differences in the trend of responses across
different stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, as stressed by stakeholders (mostly social partners
and national authorities) internal working practices could be improved, concerning coordination
and planning (e.g. meetings’ duration and frequency, enhancing overall coordination and
communication among ELA's services).
Finally, stakeholders’ views (both from ELA staff itself and national authorities) on ELA’s
governance structures highlighted that
the Management Board overall works well.
As
representatives of their countries, members often approached issues from a national standpoint,
creating the need to reconcile various perspectives: in the views of most national stakeholders,
ELA staff was able to mitigate this challenge. Nevertheless, the feedback on the
Stakeholder
Group's effectiveness was less positive and it could be improved,
as some social partners
express uncertainty about its actual benefits. Especially from the standpoint of this stakeholder
group, there was a perception that ELA primarily used the Group as an information-sharing
246
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 50
137
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0140.png
forum, thus some social partners called for a transition of the Group into a more strategic role,
with active involvement of social partners in agenda setting.
Relevance
There was broad consensus across all stakeholder groups that
ELA is responding to existing
needs in the area of EU labour mobility,
with public authorities and EU citizens being the
two more positive stakeholder groups. While
all of ELA’s activities emerged to be relevant
247
some of the most relevant activities relate to rights of mobile workers, posting of workers and
tackling of undeclared work. ELA
partially met the needs of social partners,
particularly
employers: room for improvement related to the demand for a wage calculator for posted
workers and a business-related helpdesk.
NCOs were instead the most dissatisfied group of
stakeholders:
they called for the need for ELA to enhance staff preparedness, ensure the
participation of decision-makers in meetings, and stressed the importance of maintaining
EURES' core purpose as a matchmaking tool rather than transforming it into a dissemination
instrument.
Furthermore, ELA demonstrated
adaptability in response to unforeseen challenges, proving
flexibility in adjusting its services to address unexpected obstacles.
While the perspectives
of ELA staff and Management board members on this matter were strongly positive (i.e.
mentioning as successful examples the Authority’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and
the help it provided to Member States concerning Ukrainian refugee integration), the views of
some public employment services and social partners were relatively less enthusiastic. These
two stakeholder groups expressed a less positive feedback on the handling of the Ukraine crisis
(i.e. ELA’s response was limited by the fact that several Member States had already moved
forward with initiatives, and due to political and legal constraints), and on the way ELA dealt
with the impact of third-country labour on EU employment.
Broad consensus across all stakeholder groups was found on the key trends that were expected
to significantly impact the future work ELA: digital transition and technological development,
migration from outside the EU, and labour and skills shortages.
Coherence
ELA’s activities appear to be moderately aligned with EU employment policy,
according
to EU institutions, agencies and other EU bodies (answers from stakeholders other than these,
e.g. national authorities, were not requested in the surveys). Divergent perspectives surfaced
regarding the migration policy issue
248
. Other areas of potential non-alignment were the
enforcement of social security coordination systems, and efforts to combat racial
discrimination.
ELA's activities seem to be moderately complementary to the activities of other
organisations, agencies, and/or stakeholders at the national level
249
. Out of the 40% of
247
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 119
248
Supporting Study, Annex VI – Section 4.1
249
Supporting Study, Annex VI – Figure 54
138
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0141.png
external stakeholders who answered that ELA’s activities are complementary to a moderate
extent, there are no differing trends within the share of responses of social partners, national
ministries, labour inspectorates and public employment services. One of ELA’s key sources of
complementarity lies in its unique focus on cross-border challenges and its role in facilitating
the enforcement of labour provisions, distinguishing it from other EU agencies
250
.
In fact, ELA's activities complemented the work of other agencies such as Eurofound, and EU-
OSHA and, to a lesser extent, those of Cedefop and European Training Foundation (ETF).
However, stakeholders perceived that further improvements in cooperation between ELA and
these agencies were necessary. Some concerns were raised by a handful of respondents about
potential duplication of efforts when ELA engages in research activities similar to those of
Eurofound or Cedefop, with a call for more action-oriented approaches.
Suggestions
251
included enhancing synergies between the Platform for Undeclared Work and
Eurofound, emphasising the collaboration between ELA and Eurofound in studying mobile
workers' conditions, and exploring partnerships with ETF for insights into foreign worker
origins.
Finally,
cooperation with other international organisations was limited,
coherently with the
nature of ELA’s mandate. In fact, ELA staff and Management Board members agreed on the
fact that there is only a
moderate complementarity between ELA’s activities and those of
other international organisations
such as the ILO, with no significant differences in the
opinions of ELA staff in comparison with Management Board members.
EU added value
In terms of EU added value, all stakeholder groups broadly acknowledged ELA’s contributions.
These included its ability to facilitate cooperation and accelerate the exchange of information
on labour mobility between Member States, aiding in their compliance with cooperation
obligations. Furthermore, national authorities and labour inspectorates in particular emphasised
ELA’s added value in improved networking, knowledge-sharing, trust-building, and
coordination among national administrations, as well as in its training and capacity-building
activities. Lastly, national authorities also appreciated the coordination on operational issues
ensured among Member States, particularly given the diverse frameworks and institutional
setups regarding labour issues.
Areas for improvement, where ELA’s added value did not fully materialise yet, are the
facilitation of access to information, as well as EURES. Finally, the EU added value of ELA
on facilitating a solution in case of disputes will need to be assessed in the future, as
stakeholders’ views are not conclusive.
Supporting Study, Annex VI – Figure 56
251
Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 109
250
139
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0142.png
A
NNEX
VI. ELA I
NTERVENTION
L
OGIC
The intervention logic displayed in the figure below forms the analytical framework for the study and each of the evaluation criteria can be linked to the
different elements it contains:
•
•
•
•
•
Effectiveness links the objectives of the Regulation and the activities of ELA to the results and impacts resulting from these to judge whether the
intended results have been reached;
Efficiency links the inputs of ELA to its outputs to judge whether the results have been reached in a cost-effective way
Relevance links the needs to the objectives of the Regulation and the activities of ELA to judge whether the latter are addressing the former properly
and fully
Coherence links together different specific objectives of the Regulation (i.e. internal coherence) and the specific objectives of the Regulation to the
objectives of other EU and international policy interventions (i.e. external coherence) to judge whether these are in line with each other
EU added value links the results of ELA’s activities to the impacts to judge whether this EU intervention is the most appropriate to reach these
impacts at EU level rather than at international, national, regional or local level.
The intervention logic thus presents the main assumptions and anticipated impact that the Regulation and ELA are supposed to have (under the activities
of ELA and the objectives of the Regulation). This was prepared based on the following acts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority
Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Labour Authority
Single Programming Document 2022-2024
Single Programming Document 2023-2025
Work Programme 2021
Work Programme 2020
140
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0143.png
141
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0144.png
142
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0145.png
A
NNEX
VII.
1.
T
HE
S
ET
-
UP
P
ROCESS OF
ELA
Delivery of the work programme
The authority operated from its start
252
on the basis of calendar years, which meant that the first
year of operation,
2019,
consisted of only five months. It was characterised by preparatory
actions, including the establishment of working groups on information and inspection, and
preparatory actions for the transfer of EURES and the Platform tackling undeclared work. ELA
also participated in the campaign #EU4FairWork, organised by the Platform tackling
undeclared work.
In
2020,
the first full year of ELA’s operation, preparatory actions continued. More operational
activities were prepared and set up, such as further work on information sources, awareness
raising about existing sources, the establishment of a translation function, elaborating
arrangements and tools for CJIs, supporting pilot-CJIs, the organisation of mutual learning and
training events for national inspectors and ELA staff as well as continued participation in the
campaign for declared work (#EU4FairWork). Discussions started with the Administrative
Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems to prepare for cooperation. ELA
prepared for taking on the management of the European Coordination Office of EURES and to
integrate the Platform tackling undeclared work. ELA’s ability to deliver was thoroughly tested
by the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the Management Board assessed
at its meeting on 25 May 2021, that ELA had delivered according to plan.
253
2021
was the first year where ELA was managed by the then newly appointed Executive
Director
254
. In May 2021 ELA acquired its financial autonomy
255
and in autumn 2021 ELA
relocated from its provisional premises in Brussels to its permanent seat in Bratislava
256
. In the
course of 2021 41 new staff members were onboarded by ELA, resulting in a total number of
staff of 84 by the end of that year.
Operationally ELA integrated the responsibilities of managing the European Coordination
Office of EURES; information and communication efforts were continued with support to
media campaigns and a review of national websites on labour mobility with a focus on cross-
border seasonal workers and workers in road transport. The translation facility continued
operation. Cooperation and exchange of information between Member States on the
enforcement of Union law was supported with workshops and training sessions, promoting the
252
253
254
255
256
2020 and 2021 had yearly work programmes, whilst from 2022 Single Programming Documents (SPD) were
introduced (which include multiannual and annual work programmes, i.e. SPD 2022-2024 and SPD 2023-
2025)
Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2020 (2021), p. 6/7.
The Executive Director took office on 16/12/2020.
The formally set date for financial autonomy was 1/08/2021.
https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/ela-opening-conference-9-november-2021
143
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0146.png
use of IMI in the area of posting and further efforts, including a comprehensive information
session on road transport and the use of new IMI modules in Road Transport.
ELA furthermore supported Member States by organising CJIs and mutual learning and training
activities. It prepared for more analytical support services and developed a mid-term capacity
building strategy. The Authority gained in visibility and started liaising with other agencies
(EU-OSHA, Eurofound, FRA, European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training, ETF,
Europol).
Work continued on the integration of the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work and the
mediation function in social security coordination. As from the second semester 2021 ELA
carried out the tasks of the Technical Committee on Free Movement of Workers and of the
Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers and these bodies ceased to exist.
257
The 2021 work programme foresaw that ELA should develop a structured performance
management system. The consolidated annual activity report, however, highlighted that work
on the performance management system was delayed.
258
The Management Board concluded at its meeting on 15 June 2022, that ELA had achieved the
set targets in 2021.
259
The above-described activities continued in 2022 and 2023, with the Authority becoming fully
operational. For both years, the Management Board concluded that almost all planned activities
were fully implemented and that ELA was ‘completing the setting up phase and becoming a
fully operational agency by 2024’
260
.
2022
was the first year for ELA to set up both a multiannual programming and an annual work
programme (together they form the Single Programming Document (SPD)). In 2022 the work
was structured around the three pillars of enforcement, cooperation and information.
2022 was also the first year where ELA introduced indicators in its programming documents.
The majority of indicators concerned outputs
261
. Only few indicators going beyond pure output
were introduced.
262
While the multiannual programming 2023-2025 included some key performance indicators
263
the
2023
work programme did not provide formal indicators but rather focused on output.
Contrary to 2022, the SPD 2023 was no longer structured around the 3 pillars of enforcement,
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
Recital 43 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority,
Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2021 (2022), (Annex I), p. 50 .
Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2021 (2022), p. 8.
Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2022 (2023), p. 6 and CAAR 2023 (2024), p. 5/6
e.g. ‘number of topics and sectors covered’, ‘number of meetings’)
E.g. ‘level of stakeholder satisfaction with ELA developed tools and procedures’ or ‘impact and follow-up by
other ELA activities’.
Quantified performance indicators were repeatedly identified as compliance with the original planning (e.g.
percentage of xy requests processed (within a certain period)). I.e. by reducing ambition, performance appears
to improve.
144
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0147.png
cooperation and information. The multi-annual programming was clustered around 5 strategic
areas and the annual work programme proposed 10 operational activities and 6 horizontal
activities.
The output categories proposed in these work-programmes include standardised output (e.g.
number of translations, number of meetings) and specific or singular output (e.g. development
of a toolbox, scenarios on labour mobility). While many indicators allowed for ‘counting’,
quantified targets were not provided in either of the work programmes. Indicators referring to
the acceptance of activities (such as number of participants or outreach of media campaigns)
were not identified in the work programme, however, some indication of results is provided for
communication efforts, where the outreach of media-campaigns is looked at in more detail,
indicating that ELA’s performance has improved over time, arriving at 27 000 followers on
social media by the end of 2023. The older agencies like Cedefop (around 50 000), Eurofound
above 45 000), European Training Foundation (75 000) and OSHA (more than 250 000)
264
feature somewhat higher figures. The annual activity reports inform accordingly on ELA’s
activities. In some areas, such as the coordination of social security or analysis and risk
assessment, the consolidated activity report 2023 reads that ELA was still at an early stage
265
,
others such as mediation continue to suffer from limited demand.
As part of the discharge procedure covering the financial year 2021, the European Parliament
provided ELA with a set of observations
266
. While appreciating ELA’s efforts to cooperate with
other bodies/tools (SOLVIT, Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social
Security Systems), the European Parliament pointed to the need of strengthening the
management and control systems (including performance management). The effects of the
action taken by ELA to accommodate these concerns where not yet visible when this evaluation
was performed.
In the discharge procedure covering the financial year 2022
267
, the European Parliament
reiterated observations on the internal management and control system in line with observations
made by the Court of Auditors. It also noted the introduction in 2022 of a multi-annual
programming and annual work programme with indicators and newly defined KPIs. The
European Parliament furthermore issued observations on the high proportion of SNEs and
interim workers which could negatively affect the operational capabilities. As regards financial
management, the European Parliament noted the high amount of carry overs and called on
Member States to enhance their collaboration with the Authority.
2.
Factors influencing the delivery
264
265
266
267
These figures include around 143 000 followers of Napo – a figure used in OSHA-animations to inform about
occupational risks and how to avoid them.
See CAAR 2023, p. 11. ‘ELA successfully started its information and services activities related to social
security aspects’, p. 20: ‘ELA continued to develop a strategic risk assessment capacity’.
Procedure File: 2022/2108(DEC) | Legislative Observatory | European Parliament (europa.eu)
– See in
particular:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0191_EN.html
- see also European
Court of Auditors: 2021 Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (2022), p. 170-175:
Annual
report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (europa.eu).
Texts adopted - Discharge 2022: European Labour Authority - Thursday, 11 April 2024 (europa.eu).
145
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0148.png
High political urgency helped to establish ELA; however, it also resulted in a strong emphasis
on the achievement of predominantly quantitative milestones; qualitative aspects receiving less
attention.
268
During the COVID-19 pandemic it became more visible how vulnerable certain
groups of mobile workers (e.g. seasonal or posted workers) are and that for them working and
living conditions are directly interlinked. Fair conditions for these workers require to also look
at accommodation, thus necessitating the cooperation between different stakeholders.
ELA tried to adapt to these challenges while still developing its core activities. This created
additional pressure on its staff
269
and created some tensions with partners (in particular national
labour inspectorates, employment services and national ministries).
The sudden
surge of videoconferences
and remote working in the context of the pandemic
occurred just when ELA was in a key moment of its set up process. The increased acceptance
of videoconferences, including with national administrations was helpful. Still, the prevalence
of virtual meetings came also with the challenge to move from what was initially perceived as
a virtual to a real organisation, with real meetings and persons regularly coming to the office.
270
Also the high number of SNEs, who maintained a strong link with the organisation from which
they were seconded, in some cases hesitating to actually move to Bratislava, posed an additional
challenge.
Recruiting staff
to ELA was challenging
271
for several reasons. A suitable labour market did
not exist in Bratislava before ELA was established. For the recruitment of specialists concerning
labour inspections or employment services, ELA needed to rely on persons who made a
transition from a national administration or EU-level organisations to ELA or from
consultancies who previously worked in that area. Bratislava was not seen as very attractive for
high-quality employees due to the high cost of living, which was perceived as not being
accurately reflected in the EU salary coefficient. Career paths are also more difficult to develop
in a fairly small organisation such as ELA. This resulted in a high job offer rejection rate, with
around 30% of the job offers made in 2020 and 2021, years with a particular strong increase of
staff, not being accepted.
272
.
The adoption by the Commission of the
Mobility Package I
273
from 2020 with effects on the
cross-border provision of road transport services, clarified the rules applicable in road transport
and assigned in some cases explicitly a role to the Authority, thus providing further motivation
to support national authorities with the implementation.
268
269
270
271
272
273
See Supporting Study, section 4.1.2.2.
Supporting Study: stakeholder consultation, p. 54: ‘High workload and inadequate internal procedures result
in inconsequential handling of tasks, leading to low staff satisfaction. ELA's staffing issues impact operational
readiness and cause distress among current staff’.
Supporting Study, Annex VI.
Supporting Study, stakeholder consultation, Q7 question to staff: 49 respondents: supported, 19 didn’t know
and 17 did not at least moderately support the statement that there were challenges in the setup process (related
to e.g. recruitment of suitable candidates) and section 4.1.1.7 in the main report.
ELA Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2023.
Mobility Package I - European Commission (europa.eu)
146
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
3028892_0149.png
ELA is operating in a
highly complex legislative and organisational environment,
where on
the one side coordinated changes of rules and procedures are difficult to reach, while on the
other side urgently requested. This can be illustrated on the one side by the (still) ongoing
negotiations to revise Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and to modernise social security
coordination
274
and also by the negotiations of the Founding Regulations, when Member States
hindered ELA to take over the tasks of the Conciliation Board, the Audit Board and the
Technical Commission of the Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social
Security Systems. While on the other side, political expectations expressed by e.g. the European
Parliament, the leadership of the Commission and trade unions towards ELA are high
275
.
A side-effect of the COVID-19 pandemic was the considerably
accelerated digitalisation.
In
their responses to the surveys, stakeholders and staff express the expectation that the ‘digital
transition’ will be one of the main trends impacting ELA’s future
276
. Other trends which were
expected to have a strong impact on ELA’s work in the future were migration from outside the
EU and labour and skills shortages.
277
ELA has to manage relations with distinctly different groups of national stakeholders as
concerns labour inspections/ free movement on the one hand and in the area of facilitating
cross-border mobility by EURES on the other. EURES-related partners are employment
services. For the other activities developed by ELA, the main partners (also most represented
in the Management Board
278
) are labour inspectorates or ministries of social affairs and
employment from the Member States.
3.
Other
ELA’s building was constructed in 2018 and complies with high environmental standards
(LEED v3 Certificate). ELA undertakes efforts to minimise paper usage.
279
274
275
276
277
278
279
See Commission proposal:
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16784&langId=en
See ETUC
https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/document/files/etuc_position_-
_for_a_strong_european_labour_authority.pdf
State of the Union 2017: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_17_3165
Annex ‘Stakeholder consultation’: p. 45: ‘The main trends expected to shape the organisation’s strategic focus
in the future are the digital transition and technological development, labour and skills shortages, and
migration from outside the EU.’ Or Question 17 stakeholder survey (p. 33) and Q10 staff survey (p.60).
See ebd.
For the list of Management Board Members and their CV see:
Management Board | European Labour Authority
(europa.eu)
(retrieved 4/09/2024).
2021 ELA Consolidated Annual Activity Report.
147
 kom (2025) 0256 - Ingen titel
148