Authors
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission, ECORYS
- Catalogue number
- KE-09-24-573-EN-N
- Citation
- European Commission: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Study supporting the evaluation of EU agencies – Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA. Annex 1, Eurofound report , Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/690
- DOI
- https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/690
- ISBN
- 978-92-68-18639-8
- Pages
- 173
- Published in
- Belgium
- Themes
- Activities of the institutions and bodies , Labour market — Free movement of workers
Table of Contents
- Study supporting the evaluation of EU Agencies Eurofound Cedefop 1
- ETF and EU-OSHA 1
- VT2022015 1
- Annex 1 Eurofound report 1
- Study supporting the evaluation of EU Agencies Eurofound Cedefop 3
- ETF and EU-OSHA 3
- VT2022015 3
- Contents 5
- Figures 6
- Tables 8
- Acronyms 9
- 1. Introduction 13
- 1.1. Background and mission 13
- 2. Baseline 17
- 3. Current state of play 18
- 3.1. Budget and human resources 18
- 3.1.1. Budget 18
- 3.1.2. Human resources 20
- 3.2. Activities outputs and results 22
- 3.2.1. Activities and outputs 22
- 3.2.2. Results 26
- 3.2.3. Key challenges and external factors affecting 31
- Eurofounds work 31
- 4. Effectiveness 32
- 4.1. Activities outputs and results 32
- 4.1.1. RQ1 To what extent did the Agency achieve its 32
- 4.1.2. RQ4 Were there other broader 50
- 4.1.3. RQ5 Which factors facilitated or hindered the 53
- 4.2. How the Agencys services were used 57
- 4.2.1. RQ2 To what extent were the services of the Agency 58
- 4.2.2. RQ3 To what extent did the Agency focus its work 75
- 4.3. Adaptation to recent challenges and priorities 78
- 4.3.1. RQ6 To what degree has the Agency adapted to 78
- 4.3.2. RQ7 To what degree has the Agency provided 82
- 5. Efficiency 85
- 5.1. Agency operations 85
- 5.1.1. RQ8 To what extent were the operations of the 85
- Agency cost-effective 85
- 5.1.2. RQ10 To what extent were the internal mechanisms 95
- 5.1.3. RQ13 Were there any potential areas andor 99
- 5.2. Staffing and structure 102
- 5.2.1. RQ9 To what extent were staff resources and 102
- 5.2.2. RQ11 How efficient was the Agencys governance 108
- 5.3. Efficiency in a broader context 113
- 5.3.1. RQ12 How well was the Agency embedded in the 113
- 5.3.2. RQ14 To what extent do new elements e.g. ELA 113
- 5.4. Conclusions as to efficiency 114
- 6. Coherence 115
- 6.1. Intra -and inter-Agency coherence 115
- 6.1.1. RQ15 To what extent were the mandates and 115
- 6.1.2. RQ16 To what extent do the four agencies work 116
- 6.2. External coherence 120
- 6.2.1. RQ17 To what extent are the Agencys mandate and 120
- 6.2.2. RQ18 To what extent are the mandate and activities 126
- 6.2.3. R19 To what extent are the mandate and activities of 131
- 6.3. Conclusions as to coherence 135
- 7. EU added value 136
- 7.1. Beneficiaries of the Agencys work 136
- 7.1.1. RQ20 What was the EU added value of the Agency 136
- 7.1.2. RQ21 To which groups of stakeholders concretely 141
- 7.2. Conclusions as to EU added value 147
- 8. Relevance 148
- 8.1. Fulfilment of policy needs 148
- 8.1.1. RQ22 To what extent did the Agencys mandate 148
- 8.1.2. RQ23 To what extent are the Agencys mandate and 152
- 8.1.3. RQ24 To what extent is there a need to amend the 156
- 8.1.4. RQ25 In terms of foresight are there any future 158
- 8.1.5. RQ26 To what extent have recent audit 160
- 8.2. Conclusions as to relevance 163
- 9. Conclusions 164
- 9.1. Effectiveness 164
- 9.2. Efficiency 165
- 9.3. Coherence 166
- 9.4. EU added value 167
- 9.5. Relevance 168
- 10. Lessons learned 169