These country notes provide background information on the five countries where data collection for this study took place: Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland and Italy. They present key data from the Continuing Vocational Education and Training Survey (CVTS), namely on i.) learning opportunities provided by enterprises, ii.) the main factors limiting training provision and iii.) key features of the decision-making process on training in enterprises. The country notes also provide examples of policies to support training in enterprises, which were referenced by enterprises during the interviews.
Training in Enterprises
New Evidence from 100 Case Studies
Getting Skills Right
Annex A. Country notes
Overview of content
Austria
Learning opportunities provided by enterprises
Enterprises in Austria are more likely to provide learning and training opportunities to their employees than enterprises in the EU-27 on average. Looking at formal and non-formal training, CVTS data show that 82% of enterprises in Austria offer CVT courses, compared to 60% on average across the EU-27. Many enterprises make use of external providers to deliver such courses (69%), but a relative large share is delivered internally (56%) compared to the EU-27 average (54% and 34% respectively). This is a testament of the capability of Austrian enterprises to deliver training in-house, which is rooted in a strong dual‑vocational training system, where much of initial vocational training takes place in enterprises.
Looking at different types of informal learning, the incidence of enterprises offering opportunities for learning by doing, e.g. job rotation and self-directed learning, is slightly above the EU-27 average (17% vs. 12% and 22% vs. 20% respectively). However, Austrian enterprises are much more likely to offer opportunities to learn from others through learning/quality circles (27%) and to learn new things (65%), compared to the EU-27 average (12% and 37% respectively).
Figure A A.1. Incidence of different forms of learning in Austria
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Austria and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_01].
Main factors limiting training provision
Some interesting patterns emerge when comparing the factors limiting training provision in Austria to the EU-27 average. It is notable that only 24% of enterprises in Austria state that they are not training (more) because they can recruit the people with the right skills compared to 46% of enterprises in the EU-27 that state the same. This may be an expression of significant skill shortages in Austria. By contrast, time constraints are much more frequently cited as limiting training provision by Austrian enterprises than in the EU-27 on average (65% vs. 42%). Other notable barriers to training provision in Austria include high costs of training (42%) and the fact that major training efforts have already been made in recent years (29%).
Figure A A.2. Factors limiting the provision of training in Austria
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Austria and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_03].
Decision making about training
A large share of enterprises in Austria have a dedicated person (48%) and budget (32%) for training compared to enterprises in the EU-27 on average (37% and 26% respectively). Staff representatives play a smaller role in the objective setting in training than elsewhere (3% vs. 6%), which is perhaps surprising given the strong role of social partnership in the Austrian labour market. It is notable that Austrian enterprises are both less likely to assess their skill needs (16%) and to assess the outcomes of training (36%) than enterprises in the EU-27 on average (24% and 59% respectively).
Figure A A.3. Incidence of different decision-making activities about training in Austria
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Austria and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_07, trng_cvt_09, trng_cvt_33, trng_cvt_3].
Use of external support for training
Evidence from the case studies suggests that one in two of the Austrian enterprises makes use of external support from the government and social partners. These were mostly medium-sized enterprises with less than 250 employees. The support accessed included subsidised training provided by social partners, support for training networks, subsidies and training funds. Box A A.1 highlights some of the support options accessed by the enterprises in the sample.
Box A A.1. Practices to support training in enterprises in Austria
Impulse Qualification Associations
Some enterprises in the sample are part of Impulse Qualification Associations (Impuls-Qualifizierungs-Verbund, IQV). These are enterprise networks that come together with the aim of jointly planning and implementing qualification measures for their employees. They bring together three or more enterprises in a specific region, half of which must be SMEs. IQVs are funded by the public employment services, which cover the costs of 10 days of consultancy services for the development of HR strategies, training needs assessments and planning, the planning of training and the application for financial support, amongst others. Public employment services also subsidise 50% of any training costs targeting older adults or adults with low skills.
Source: AMS (2021[1]), Impuls-Qualifizierungs-Verbund IQV, https://www.ams.at/unternehmen/personal-und-organisationsentwicklung/impuls-qualifizierungs-verbund-iqv;
Box A A.2. Practices to support training in enterprises in Austria (continued)
Social and Further Training Fund for Temporary Workers
One enterprise in the sample made use of the Social and Further Training Fund for Temporary Workers (Sozial- und Weiterbildungsfonds der Arbeitskräfteüberlassung). The Fund was established in 2014 to improve the labour market and social situation of an estimated 130 000 temporary agency workers in Austria. Aim of the fund is to support employees of temporary employment agencies during the periods in which they are not assigned to a posting due to the lack of opportunity for such assignment, when they are at risk of unemployment or unemployed. The fund finances the direct and indirect costs of training measures of employees in temporary agencies. The employment contract with the temporary employment agency is maintained during the training. It is funded through a levy of 0.35% paid by temporary employment agencies.
Financial support by the Carinthian Economic Promotion Fund (KWF)
Many regional authorities in Austria have their own financial support instruments to incentivise training in enterprises. One enterprise in the sample had accessed support by the Carinthian Economic Promotion Fund. The fund supports small and medium enterprises with information, advice and financial aid to support growth and innovation in the region. The enterprise interviewed in the context of the case studies had received a subsidy for a 1.5 year-long training of an employee to become an innovation manager.
Source: WKO (2021[2]), Der Sozial- und Weiterbildungsfonds, https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Der-Sozial-und-Weiterbildungsfonds.html; Cedefop (2021[3]), Financing adult learning database, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/tools/financing-adult-learning-db/search/social-and-further-training-fund-temporary-work-austria; KWF (2021[4]), Aufgabenfelder des KWF – Kärntner Wirtschaftsförderungs Fonds, https://kwf.at/
Estonia
Learning opportunities provided by enterprises
Enterprises in Estonia are somewhat more likely to offer their employees formal and non-formal training opportunities than enterprises in the EU-27 on average. Data from the CVTS shows that 64% of enterprises in Estonia offer CVT courses, compared to 60% on average across the EU-27. Enterprises make use of external providers to deliver such courses (60% vs. 54% in EU-27), but also deliver CVT courses internally (46% vs. 34% in EU-27). It is notable that a large share of enterprises in Estonia offer guided-on-the‑job training (66%) compared to the average enterprise in the EU-27 (41%).
The share of enterprises offering different types of informal learning opportunities is around average. There are two exceptions: the higher prevalence of enterprises that offer opportunities for learning by doing through job rotation and alike (16% vs. 12% in EU-27) and the lower prevalence of enterprises that offer opportunities for learning from others through learning/quality circles (6% vs. 12% in EU-27).
Figure A A.4. Incidence of different forms of learning in Estonia
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Estonia and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_01].
Main factors limiting training provision
Enterprises in Estonia seem to face lower barriers to training provision overall than average enterprises in the EU-27. The biggest obstacles for Estonian enterprises to provide more training is the high cost of CVT courses (32%), which is about as high as the EU-average (35%). Only 15% of Estonian enterprises state not to train because they recruit people with the needed skills, compared to an EU-27 average of 46%. Similarly, only 23% of Estonian enterprises state that lack of time is a limiting factor for training, compared to an EU-27 average of 42%. The only other notable obstacle to training provision named by Estonian enterprises is a lack of suitable CVT courses on the market (13% vs. 15% in EU-27).
Figure A A.5. Factors limiting the provision of training in Estonia
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Estonia and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_03].
Decision making about training
Enterprises in Estonia are less likely to have a dedicated person or budget for training than the average enterprise in the EU-27. Only 22% of enterprises have a dedicated person or unit responsible for organising training (vs. 37% in EU-27). Only 21% of enterprises have a dedicated training budget (vs. 26% in EU-27). Staff representatives’ role in objective setting of training is low – they are involved in only 2% of Estonian enterprises, compared to 6% of enterprises in the EU-27.
Figure A A.6. Incidence of different decision-making activities about training in Estonia
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Estonia and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_07, trng_cvt_09, trng_cvt_33, trng_cvt_3].
Estonian enterprises are lagging behind enterprises in other EU-27 countries when it comes to assessing their skill needs and the outcomes of training: 10% of enterprises in Estonia regularly assess their skill needs, compared to 24% in the EU-27. Along the same lines, only 46% assess the outcomes of training, compared to 59% of enterprises in the EU-27.
Use of external support for training
Evidence from the case studies suggests that three in five Estonian enterprises make use of enterprise support by the government and social partners. Enterprises taking up support are typically medium-sized, but not exclusively so. The support accessed includes information services, free access to courses provided by ministries and government agencies and subsidies for the provision of training in rare cases. Box A A.3 highlights some of the support options accessed by the enterprises in the sample.
Box A A.3. Practices to support training in enterprises in Estonia
DigiABC and other direct training provision
The Estonian case studies include an array of examples of direct training provision, typically co-funded by the European Union. Several enterprises interviewed had participated in the project DigiABC, which delivered digital literacy training for (low-skilled) employees in the industrial sector between 2017 and 2020. It aimed at engaging 3 000 employees and 1 000 managers in training through their workplaces. The project was funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and delivered by Adult Education Centres in co‑operation with the Estonian Employers’ Confederation. Beyond this, Estonian enterprises interviewed in the case studies mention a number of other publicly funded training courses. These include training courses on lean manufacturing (5s) or service design funded by Enterprise Estonia, vocational training through the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund and language training for Russian speaking employees.
Free access to online learning platform.
In the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research offered 50 000 free online learning spaces on the Cousera education platform. This was part of Cousera’s Workforce Recovery Initiative. Learners had access to around 300 courses on general and work-related skills, such as digital literacy, project management and business english. Access was first restricted to groups most affected by the crisis, but was then opened to all Estonians. While the measure targets individuals, rather than enterprises, several enterprises interviewed in the context of the case studies highlighted that they had made use of the free training offer for their employees. The Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund had alerted enterprises to the offer.
Source: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Estonia (2021[5]), IT skills and knowledge, https://www.mkm.ee/en/objectives-activities/information-society/it-skills-and-knowledge, Haridusportaal (2020[6]), Free online courses from Coursera, https://haridusportaal.edu.ee/artiklid/free-online-courses-coursera
France
Learning opportunities provided by enterprises
Enterprises in France seem to have a different learning model, compared to enterprises in the rest of the EU-27. Firms in France are more likely to offer CVT courses (79% vs. 70% in EU-27), especially delivered by external providers (69% vs. 54% in EU-27), whereas they are less likely to offer on-the job training (23% vs. 41% in EU-27), and informal learning opportunities, according to CVTS data. Enterprises in France are less inclined to offer opportunities for learning by doing, for learning from others and for learning new things through conferences, workshops and lectures. This likely reflect the peculiarity of the French training system, which provides strong incentives and support for the adoption of certified training.
Figure A A.7. Incidence of different forms of learning in France
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in France and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_01].
Main factors limiting training provision
Enterprises in France are more likely to face barriers limiting their provision of training, compared to enterprises in the EU-27. In France, the most common factor limiting the provision of training reported by companies is a lack of time (57% vs. 42% in EU-27), followed by the cost of training (53% vs. 34% in EU‑27). Another barrier that is more important in France than in the EU-27 on average relates to enterprises’ difficulty to assess their training needs (32% vs. 12% in EU-27).
Figure A A.8. Factors limiting the provision of training in France
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in France and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_03].
Decision making about training
According to legislation introduced in 2014 (LOI n° 2014-288), enterprises in France are legally obliged to evaluate the impact of training actions. This legal obligation explains why the share of firms declaring that they assess the outcomes of training stands at 95%, much higher than the average for EU-27 (59%) and higher than any other country included in the CVTS. Firms in France are also more likely than firms in the EU-27 to have a dedicated training budget, and to regularly assess the skills of their workforce.
Figure A A.9. Incidence of different decision-making activities about training in France
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in France and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_07, trng_cvt_09, trng_cvt_33, trng_cvt_3].
Use of external support for training
Evidence from the case studies suggests that more than three in five French enterprises make use of enterprise support by the government and social partners. Enterprises which take up support are typically medium-sized, but not exclusively so. The support accessed includes primarily information and guidance services, as well as different kinds of subsidies. Box A A.4 highlights some of the support options accessed by the enterprises in the sample.
Box A A.4. Practices to support training in enterprises in France
Skills Operators
Evidence from the case studies suggest that many enterprises in France make use of the guidance services provided by Skills Operators (opérateurs de compétences, OPCO). These bodies are responsible for supporting SMEs in defining their training needs, identifying training opportunities and advising on the available financial support options. There are 11 sectoral OPCOs with 329 branches across France. OPCOs are run by social partners, which staff the board of directors of each OPCO with an equal number of representatives. Government representatives are involved in the board only in an advisory a capacity. One in two French enterprises in the case study sample are in contact with OPCO with varying intensity. They are typically medium-sized, although some larger enterprises also use the services.
Individual learning accounts
In 2015, the introduction of the Individual Learning Accounts (Compte Personnel de Formation, CPF) was a milestone for the French continuing training system. The account aims to empower individuals to take responsibility for their own training, to improve skills, to reduce inequalities in accessing training and to strengthen market mechanisms in the continuing training system. In its current version, it allows employees to collect training entitlements of EUR 500 per year (EUR 800 per year for low-skilled adults) up to a ceiling of EUR 5 000 (EUR 8 000 for low-skilled adults). In fact, the CPF is the only international example of individuals building portable training entitlements over time. Individuals can use their entitlements to purchase certified CET opportunities via a website or phone application. The CPF is funded through employers’ levies, which are paid into training funds. Self-employed workers contribute a flat rate. While in theory the account is meant to encourage personal autonomy in the take‑up and choice of training, evidence from the case studies suggests that some employers encourage their employees to use the CPF to finance job-related training.
Source: Ministère du Travail (2021[7]), Les opérateurs de compétences (OPCO), https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/partenaires/opco; Perez and Vour’ch (2020[8]), Individualising training access schemes : France – the Compte Personnel de Formation (Personal Training Account – CPF), OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 245, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/301041f1-en
Ireland
Learning opportunities provided by enterprises
Enterprises in Ireland have a likelihood to offer formal and non-formal training opportunities similar to the EU-27 average. However, there are some differences in the types of training offered. Firms in Ireland are more inclined to rely on internal training opportunities, such as internal CVT courses (42% vs. 34% in EU‑27) and on-the‑job training (59% vs. 41% in EU-27), as opposed to external CVT courses (49% vs. 54% in EU-27). This might reflect greater difficulties to engage with external providers or a preference to foster an internal culture of learning.
Consistent with this second interpretation, the share of enterprises offering different types of informal learning opportunities in Ireland is above average. Enterprises in Ireland are more likely to offer opportunities for learning by doing through job rotation, exchanges or secondments (18% vs. 12% in EU‑27) and self-directed learning (37% vs. 19% in EU-27). Irish enterprises also have a greater propensity to offer opportunities to learn new things (53% vs. 37% in EU-27). Lastly, the share of firms offering learning and quality circles is slightly above the EU average (15% vs. 12% in EU-27).
Figure A A.10. Incidence of different forms of learning in Ireland
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Ireland and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_01].
Main factors limiting training provision
Overall, enterprises in Ireland seem to face comparable barriers to training provision to enterprises in the EU-27. However, firms in Ireland are more likely to report that lack of time is a limiting factor for training (50% vs. 42% in EU-27).
Figure A A.11. Factors limiting the provision of training in Ireland
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Ireland and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_03].
Decision making about training
Overall, firms in Ireland seem to have similar decision-making processes to firms in the EU-27. The share of Irish firms having a specific person responsible for organising training or having a training budget is line with the EU-27 average. However, enterprises in Ireland are more likely to assess their skill needs (31% vs. 24% in EU-27), whereas they are less likely to assess the outcomes of training (56% vs. 59% in EU‑27). This might reflect the fact that Irish enterprises are less likely to rely on external providers.
Figure A A.12. Incidence of different decision-making activities about training in Ireland
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Ireland and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_07, trng_cvt_09, trng_cvt_33, trng_cvt_3].
Use of external support for training
Evidence from the case studies suggests that the vast majority of Irish enterprises make use of enterprise support by the government and social partners. This is true for medium and large enterprises alike. The support accessed by enterprises in the sample primarily relates to different kinds of subsidies, but also information and guidance services. Box A A.5 highlights some of the support options accessed by the enterprises in the sample.
Box A A.5. Practices to support training in enterprises in Ireland
Skillnet Ireland
The government builds the joint capacity of enterprises through Skillnet Ireland. Skillnet Ireland works with more 70 single‑ or multi-sector networks that bring together firms, primarily small and medium enterprises, to collaborate to address their skill needs. Services of the individual networks include, amongst others, assistance in the identification of skill and training needs, development of training plans, the development of new training programmes and advice on the evaluation of the effectiveness of training. Skillnet Ireland also subsidises training, through funding that is raised through a training levy (see subsection on financing above). Evaluations suggest that enterprises are satisfied with the offer, with more than three in four enterprises stating that participating in the network had a positive effect on the long-term performance of their business.
Skills to Advance and other subsidies
In Ireland several enterprises reported receiving subsidies for training from multiple sources, including from Enterprise Ireland (government agency to support Irish businesses in international trade), Skillnet Ireland (national agency for workforce learning), Solas (government agency for further education and training) or industry bodies such as Engineers Ireland. Solas, for example, provides subsidies for enterprises to upskill vulnerable groups through the programme Skills to Advance. These groups include older works, those working in lower skilled jobs or in jobs at risk of significant change due to technology. The subsidy is dependent on company size: large enterprises can receive a 50% subsidy, which increases to 70% for small enterprises. Eligible training costs include costs related to the identification of training needs, as well the development, design and delivery of training.
Source: Skillnet Ireland (2021[9]), Skillnet Ireland, https://www.skillnetireland.ie/; Indecon (2019[10]), Evalution of Skillnet Ireland in 2018, https://www.skillnetireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Indecon-Evaluation-of-Skillnet-Ireland-2018-Final-Report-30-October-2019.pdf; Solas (2021[11]), Skills to Advance, https://www.solas.ie/programmes/skills-to-advance/; Solas (2019[12]), General Block Exemption Regulation, Skills to Advance Schmee 2019‑2021, https://www.solas.ie/f/70398/x/69a799b4ff/skillstoadvance_scheme_2019-2021.pdf
Italy
Learning opportunities provided by enterprises
Enterprises in Italy are less likely to provide any of the different learning opportunities to their employees, compared to enterprises in the EU-27 on average. Looking at formal and non-formal training, 52% of enterprises in Italy offer CVT courses, compared to 60% on average across the EU-27. Firms in Italy are less likely to offer both external (47% vs. 54% in EU-27) and internal (26% vs. 34% in EU-27) CVT courses. The situation for informal learning is similar. Enterprises in Italy are less likely to offer opportunities to learn by doing, learn from others through quality circles and learning new things. To some extent, these results might reflect the relatively high incidence of SMEs in the Italian economy. SMEs are less likely to provide learning opportunities, and when they do so, might rely on less institutionalised forms of learning, that may not be covered by the CVTS (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3).
Figure A A.13. Incidence of different forms of learning in Italy
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Italy and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_01].
Main factors limiting training provision
In principle, the comparatively low reliance on training by Italian firms could also be due to obstacles in provision. However, enterprises in Italy are less likely to report that they experience barriers, compared to firms in the EU-27. The relative underprovision of training in Italy could be explained, among other factors, by negative management attitudes (see Chapter 2 and 3), the adoption of product market strategies that do not make learning a priority (see Chapter 2 and 3) and the lack of internal capabilities to make decisions about training (see Chapter 4).
Figure A A.14. Factors limiting the provision of training in Italy
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors in Italy and EU 27 countries.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_03].
Decision making about training
The CVTS data on decision-making about training suggest that a lack of internal capabilities could play a role in explaining the comparatively low provision of training in Italy. Although firms in Italy are more likely than firms in the EU-27 to have a specific person or unit responsible for organising training, they are less likely to have a training budget and to regularly assess their training needs. The underperformance in these two areas could contribute to the underprovision of training opportunities by Italian enterprises.
Figure A A.15. Incidence of different decision-making activities about training in Italy
Note: Sample includes enterprises with 9+ employees across all sectors; data missing on assessing the outcomes of training for Italy.
Source: Eurostat, CVTS 2015, [trng_cvt_07, trng_cvt_09, trng_cvt_33, trng_cvt_3].
Use of external support for training
Evidence from the case studies suggests that three in four Italian enterprises make use of enterprise support by the government and social partners. In the sample of enterprises included in the study, large enterprises are more likely to take up support in Italy. The support accessed by enterprises in the sample primarily relates to the use of Training Funds, but also information provided by employer and professional associations. Box A A.6 highlights some of the support options accessed by the enterprises in the sample.
Box A A.6. Practices to support training in enterprises in Italy
Training Funds
In Italy enterprises pay 0.3% of their payroll into one of 20 Training Funds (Fondi Paritetici Interprofessionali), each focusing on different sectors, size and types of enterprises. Set-up in the early 2000s, they now cover over 900 000 firms and 10 million workers in Italy, managing funds of more than EUR 600 million per year. Some of the funding is distributed through public calls for training plans (Avvisi), which aim to steer training provision towards specific skills or types of workers. It is important to note that the Italian Training Funds do not manage to redistribute training funds from larger to small firms, with larger firms much more likely to receive financial support through the funds. Within the sample of enterprises interviewed in the context of this study, more than three in five made use of the financial incentives provided through Training Funds. However, several enterprises interviewed voiced their dissatisfaction with the instruments, highlighting that the process was to complex and bureaucratic. This is a known problem of this instrument in Italy.
Source: OECD (2019[13]), Getting Skills Right: Adult Learning in Italy. What role for training funds?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311978-en; OECD (2021[14]), Raising Skills in SMEs in the digital transformation. A review of policy instruments in Italy, OECD Publishing, Paris
References
[1] AMS (2021), Impuls-Qualifizierungs-Verbund IQV, https://www.ams.at/unternehmen/personal--und-organisationsentwicklung/impuls-qualifizierungs-verbund-iqv.
[3] Cedefop (2021), Financing adult learning database, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/tools/financing-adult-learning-db/search/social-and-further-training-fund-temporary-work-austria.
[6] Hariduspoartaal (2020), Free online courses from Coursera, https://haridusportaal.edu.ee/artiklid/free-online-courses-coursera.
[10] Indecon (2019), Evaluation of Skillnet Ireland Programmes 2018, https://www.skillnetireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Indecon-Evaluation-of-Skillnet-Ireland-2018-Final-Report-30-October-2019.pdf.
[9] Ireland, S. (2021), Skillnet Ireland, https://www.skillnetireland.ie/.
[4] KWF (2021), Aufgabenfelder des KWF – Kärntner Wirtschaftsförderungs Fonds, https://kwf.at/.
[7] Ministère du Travail (2021), Les opérateurs de compétences (OPCO), https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/partenaires/opco.
[5] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (2021), IT skills and knowledge, https://www.mkm.ee/en/objectives-activities/information-society/it-skills-and-knowledge.
[14] OECD (2021), Raising Skills in SMEs in the Digital Transformation. A review of policy instruments in Italy.
[13] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Adult Learning in Italy. What role for training funds?, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264311978-en.pdf?expires=1596101829&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=91391C89B80A419EAC58BD1DEC156E9B.
[15] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en.
[8] Perez, C. and A. Vourc’h (2020), “Individualising training access schemes: France – the Compte Personnel de Formation (Personal Training Account – CPF)”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/301041f1-en.
[11] Solas (2021), Skills to Advance, https://www.solas.ie/programmes/skills-to-advance/.
[12] Solas (2019), General Block Exemption Regulation (“the Regulation”), https://www.solas.ie/f/70398/x/e5109295f4/skills-to-advance-general-block-exemption-regulation-2019.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2021).
[2] WKO (2021), Der Sozial- und Weiterbildungsfonds, https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Der-Sozial--und-Weiterbildungsfonds.html.