# Recognition Agreements Across Borders and Sectors Structured methods for mutual recognition of credentials. Course ID: ICB-A11 | ICSF skill ECOS "Ecosystem and recognition partnerships" | Level L4 "Assure" | Stage A "Ability" ## About this course **Who it is for.** This course is for professional bodies and sector associations, policy makers and public agencies, programme and micro-credential leads, and learning and development or corporate academy leads. You should already have completed ICB-P17 Engaging Verifiers and Employers, so you know how to bring verifiers and employers into a conversation about credentials. **What you will be able to do.** At level L4 "Assure" you negotiate recognition agreements across organisations or sectors and resolve differing quality expectations between partners. This course is at the "Ability" stage: you practise on realistic cases in a controlled setting and use the knowledge you gain to produce a draft agreement. **Learning outcomes.** When you finish this course you can: 1. Design a recognition agreement between issuers, employers or professional bodies. 2. Define quality expectations and how evidence is exchanged. 3. Handle legal, language and level differences between countries. 4. Set governance and review of the agreement. **Workload.** 8 hours of notional learning in a blended cohort. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements are described in facilitator notes inside each module. **How it is assessed.** Each module has a short quiz for your own feedback. The final task is a draft recognition agreement with an annex of quality criteria. A trained assessor marks it against the rubric in "Assessment and badge". A final knowledge check supports the task. **Badge.** Successful learners receive the badge "Recognition Agreements Across Borders and Sectors (Ability, L4)", alignment code ICSF-ECOS-L4-A. The badge evidence is your draft agreement. The badge records that you met the assessment criteria for this course in a controlled setting. It does not prove competence in any particular job. **Quality focus.** The VRITE pillar for this skill is Value. Throughout the course we look at what gives a recognition agreement value for earners, issuers and employers, and what makes it trustworthy. **AI focus.** General rules only. If you use an AI tool to help draft text, you remain responsible for every clause. Do not paste personal data or confidential partner documents into tools that your organisation has not approved. Check any legal or factual statement an AI tool produces against an official source. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Design a recognition agreement between issuers, employers or professional bodies | Recognition models | Module quiz and practice activity; draft agreement (structure, scope and parties); knowledge check | | 2. Define quality expectations and how evidence is exchanged | Quality expectations | Module quiz and practice activity; annex of quality criteria in the draft agreement; knowledge check | | 3. Handle legal, language and level differences between countries | Cross-border issues | Module quiz and practice activity; cross-border clauses in the draft agreement; knowledge check | | 4. Set governance and review of the agreement | Governance | Module quiz and practice activity; governance and review clauses in the draft agreement; knowledge check |

Facilitator notes

**Blended plan (illustrative).** Self-paced study of this file takes about 4 hours. The remaining time is live: a 90-minute opening workshop where learners form partner pairs and agree a case, a 90-minute negotiation simulation after Module 3, and a 60-minute peer review session before submission. Adjust to your cohort. **Before the first session.** Confirm that each learner completed ICB-P17. Ask learners to bring one real or realistic recognition scenario from their own organisation, with confidential details removed. **Group balance.** Mix learners from associations, public agencies, providers and employers where you can. Different viewpoints make the negotiation practice richer.

## Recognition models ### Why recognition agreements exist A credential has value when someone other than the issuer trusts it. A recognition agreement is a written understanding between two or more parties about how they will treat each other's credentials. It tells earners what they can expect, tells verifiers what they can rely on, and tells issuers what they must maintain. Recognition can take several forms. A professional body may accept a university's programme as meeting part of its entry requirements. An employer may agree to treat a sector association's micro-credential as evidence for a promotion step. Two national agencies may agree that credentials at a stated level in one framework can be compared with credentials at a stated level in another. Without an agreement, each recognition decision is made case by case. That is slow, inconsistent and hard to explain to earners. A good agreement makes decisions repeatable and open to review. In this course, "recognition" means a documented decision to give a credential a defined status or effect in another organisation's context. The effect might be admission, exemption from a part of a programme, credit, licence to practise, hiring preference or access to a role. You must always state the effect, because "we recognise each other's credentials" is too vague to apply. ### Four recognition models Most agreements fit one of four models. Real agreements often combine them. **Unilateral recognition.** One party decides to accept another party's credentials. The other party does not need to agree or reciprocate. A professional body that lists approved programmes works this way. **Bilateral mutual recognition.** Two parties accept each other's credentials on stated terms. Both carry obligations, so you need clear terms on quality and evidence. **Multilateral agreement.** Several parties sign one framework agreement and apply the same terms to all. This reduces repeat negotiation but needs stronger governance, because one weak partner affects everyone. **Referencing to a shared framework.** Parties do not compare credentials directly. Each maps its credentials to a common reference, such as a qualifications framework level or a skills taxonomy, and recognition follows from the mapping. Choose the model by asking three questions. How many parties will take part? How much do they trust each other's quality assurance already? How often will credentials change? Few parties with high trust suit a bilateral agreement. Many parties with varied quality assurance suit referencing to a shared framework with a clear review cycle. ### The structure of a recognition agreement Most agreements share the same building blocks. The graphic shows the structure this course uses. The body of the agreement states the principles and obligations. The annexes hold the detail that changes more often, such as quality criteria and data formats. Keeping detail in annexes means you can update it without reopening the whole agreement. ### Scope and effect clauses The first clause you write is scope. State which credentials are covered, which are excluded, and what effect recognition has. A useful scope clause answers five questions: 1. Which issuers and which credentials are covered? 2. Which receiving parties will recognise them? 3. What effect does recognition have (for example credit, exemption, hiring criterion)? 4. Is recognition automatic or subject to a further check? 5. How long does it last? Avoid the word "equivalent" unless you define it. Equivalence can mean same level, same content, same outcome or same legal status, and parties often mean different things. **Worked example: Association and public agency agree on a micro-credential** A national sector association for building services engineers (a lime party) issues a short micro-credential on energy audit practice. A regional public agency (also lime, as policy) funds training for energy advisers and wants to accept the micro-credential as one of the entry requirements for its adviser register. The programme lead at the association and the registrar at the agency work through the scope questions. They choose unilateral recognition first, because the agency has no credentials of its own to offer in return. The scope clause reads, in plain terms: "The agency accepts the association's Energy Audit Practice micro-credential as meeting entry requirement 3 of the adviser register, provided the credential was issued after the date of the first approved assessment cycle and is verified through the association's published verification service." They exclude older certificates issued before the assessment was redesigned. They set the effect as "meets one entry requirement", not "grants a place on the register". They set the term at three years, with a review before renewal. A second context shows the same method in a company. A corporate academy at a logistics group (an orange party) has an internal safety leadership badge. The HR department wants to recognise a sector association's external safety certificate as a substitute for the first module of the internal pathway. They choose a bilateral approach in the long run, because the academy's badge may later be recognised by the association's members. For now they sign a unilateral clause with a review point after twelve months. All numbers and details in these examples are illustrative. **Practice activity: Choose a model and write a scope clause** Take the scenario below, or use your own with confidential details removed. *Scenario:* A national chamber of crafts (association) issues a master craftsperson qualification. A vocational college (provider) offers a business management micro-credential. A large retailer's HR department wants to treat both as evidence when selecting candidates for a trainee manager scheme. 1. Decide which recognition model fits best and write two sentences explaining why. 2. Write a scope clause of 80 to 120 words that answers the five questions above. 3. Name one thing the clause deliberately excludes and why. Keep your clause. You will refine it in later modules and reuse it in the final task.

Facilitator notes

**Timing.** About 30 minutes self-paced, or 20 minutes in pairs in the opening workshop. **Suggested debrief.** Ask pairs to swap scope clauses and look for words that can be read in two ways. Common ones are "equivalent", "relevant", "recognised" and "approved". Ask each pair to replace the vague word with a defined term. **Watch for.** Learners who write only "the parties will recognise each other's credentials". Ask what effect that has for an earner on Monday morning.

### Quiz: Recognition models **Question 1.** A sector association wants to accept a university's short course as meeting one of its entry requirements. The university will not accept anything in return. Which model fits? [( )] Bilateral mutual recognition [(X)] Unilateral recognition [( )] Multilateral agreement [( )] Referencing to a shared framework [[?]] Look at who takes on obligations in this arrangement. **** Only the association accepts the other party's credentials, so this is unilateral recognition. Bilateral and multilateral models need obligations from several parties, and referencing needs a shared framework that neither party has used here. **** **Question 2.** Why should detailed quality criteria usually sit in an annex? [( )] Annexes are not legally binding, so parties carry less risk [( )] Annexes keep the agreement short enough for the public to read [(X)] The criteria change more often and can be updated without reopening the main text [( )] Regulators require annexes for every agreement [[?]] Think about what happens at the next review of the criteria. **** Criteria such as assessment standards and evidence formats change over time. Keeping them in an annex allows an update through the governance process without renegotiating the principles. Annexes can be binding, and no general rule requires them. **** **Question 3.** Which scope clause is the most useful? [( )] The parties recognise each other's credentials as equivalent. [( )] The employer will consider relevant credentials fairly. [(X)] The employer accepts the named credential as meeting selection criterion 2, if it was issued after 1 January and is verifiable through the issuer's service. [( )] The association promotes the credential to its members wherever possible. [[?]] A good clause names the credential, the effect and a condition. **** The third clause names the credential, states the effect, and sets conditions that can be checked. The others use undefined words such as "equivalent" and "relevant", or describe promotion rather than recognition. **** **Question 4.** Which situation best suits referencing to a shared framework? [( )] Two parties with strong mutual trust and one credential each [( )] A single employer deciding on one external certificate [(X)] Many issuers with different quality assurance systems who all map to a common level reference [( )] A one-off exemption for a single earner [[?]] Consider how many parties are involved and whether they know each other's systems. **** When many parties with different systems need a common point of comparison, mapping each to a shared reference avoids many separate bilateral negotiations. The other situations involve few parties or one-off decisions. **** ## Quality expectations ### From trust to criteria Parties recognise credentials when they trust the way the credentials were awarded. Trust becomes workable when it is written as criteria that another party can check. Quality expectations are those criteria. They describe what must be true about a credential, its issuer and its assessment before the receiving party accepts it. Differing quality expectations are the main source of friction in negotiations. An association may stress peer-reviewed assessment. An employer may care more about recent, workplace-based evidence. A public agency may need documented quality assurance because public money is involved. None of these views is wrong. Your task as negotiator is to find which expectations matter for the effect you want, and agree how to check them. ### Four areas of quality expectation Most quality criteria fall into four areas. Use them as a checklist when you build an annex. **Issuer quality.** Who issues the credential and how are they governed? Typical criteria: legal status, accreditation or approval by a recognised body, published quality assurance, complaints procedure. **Learning outcomes and level.** What does the credential claim the earner can do, and at what level? Typical criteria: outcomes stated in clear terms, a stated level in a named framework, a workload or volume statement. **Assessment and evidence.** How was achievement judged? Typical criteria: assessment methods, assessor competence, identity checks, authenticity controls, grading rules, handling of appeals. **Credential integrity.** Can the receiving party trust the credential itself? Typical criteria: a verifiable digital format, issue and expiry dates, revocation handling, data protection, a link to the issuer's published information. The graphic shows how the four areas fit together around the credential. ### Writing criteria that a partner can check A criterion is useful when a person who has never met the issuer can decide whether it is met. Test each criterion with three questions. Is it observable? Is the evidence named? Is the threshold clear? Compare two versions: - Weak: "The issuer has good quality assurance." - Stronger: "The issuer publishes a quality assurance policy that covers assessment, appeals and review, and has been externally reviewed in the last five years. Evidence: link to the policy and the review statement." Write criteria as short statements with an evidence line. Give each a number so that later reviews and disputes can refer to it. ### Exchanging evidence Quality criteria need an evidence route. Decide what evidence travels between parties, how, and how often. Options include: - **Document exchange at the start.** The issuer sends its quality assurance policy, assessment specification and sample credential once, before the agreement takes effect. - **Published information.** The issuer keeps a public page with current criteria and credential details, and the receiving party checks it when needed. - **Periodic reports.** The issuer sends a short annual report on volumes, appeals, changes and incidents. - **Per-credential verification.** The receiving party checks each credential through a verification service. - **Sampling and audit.** The receiving party, or an agreed third party, reviews a sample of assessments. Choose the lightest route that gives the receiving party enough confidence for the effect they grant. A hiring preference needs less evidence than a licence to practise. Agree also what each party does with the evidence, including how long it is kept and who may see it. Where evidence contains personal data, state the legal basis and protection measures in the agreement, and involve your data protection lead. **Worked example: Agency and provider agree on an evidence route** A public agency responsible for adult learning (lime) wants to fund learners who hold a digital skills micro-credential from a private training provider (cyan). The agency's programme lead and the provider's quality manager draft the annex. The agency's concern is public money. It needs to know that assessment is independent and that credentials cannot be forged. The provider's concern is workload. It does not want to send large files every month. They agree the following criteria and routes, shown in simplified form: - Criterion Q1: assessors are independent of the teaching team. Evidence: assessor policy, supplied at the start and after any change. - Criterion Q2: each credential states outcomes, level and date. Evidence: sample credential, supplied at the start. - Criterion Q3: credentials can be verified online. Evidence: the agency checks each credential through the provider's verification service. - Criterion Q4: appeals are handled within a stated period. Evidence: annual report with the number of appeals and outcomes. In a second context, an HR director at a manufacturing company (orange) and a sector association (lime) agree that the company will treat the association's welding micro-credential as proof of a practical test. The company asks for sampling: once a year, its own trainer observes three assessments. The association accepts, because it lets the company see the standard first-hand without extra paperwork each time. Figures in this example are illustrative. **Practice activity: Draft an annex of quality criteria** Use your scenario from Module 1. 1. Write five quality criteria. Cover at least three of the four areas (issuer quality, learning outcomes and level, assessment and evidence, credential integrity). 2. For each criterion, add an evidence line that names the document or check and who supplies it. 3. Choose an evidence route for the whole agreement (for example start documents plus annual report plus per-credential verification) and explain in two sentences why it is proportionate to the effect you set in your scope clause. 4. Identify one criterion where the two parties may disagree and write a compromise wording. Keep your annex draft for the final task.

Facilitator notes

**Timing.** About 45 minutes self-paced. **Live element (optional, 45 minutes).** Run a short role-play. Pair learners as "receiving party" and "issuer". The receiving party presents three non-negotiable criteria. The issuer presents two criteria they cannot meet and offers alternatives. They then agree a compromise wording together. Observers note which compromises keep the purpose of the criterion and which weaken it. **Debrief questions.** Which criteria were easiest to check? Which relied on trust? What evidence would you request if the effect were a licence to practise instead of a hiring preference?

### Quiz: Quality expectations **Question 1.** Which criterion is easiest for a partner to check? [( )] The issuer maintains high standards. [( )] Assessments are fair and rigorous. [(X)] The issuer publishes its appeals procedure, and credentials can be verified through its online service. [( )] Assessors are suitably experienced. [[?]] Look for the version where a stranger could say yes or no. **** The third criterion names observable items: a published procedure and an online verification service. The others use words such as "high", "fair", "rigorous" and "suitable" without a threshold or an evidence source. **** **Question 2.** An employer will grant only a hiring preference based on a partner's credential. What is the most proportionate evidence route? [( )] Full audit of every assessment each year [(X)] Published information from the issuer plus per-credential verification [( )] A joint accreditation panel visiting every site [( )] No evidence, because the effect is small [[?]] Match the weight of evidence to the weight of the effect. **** A hiring preference carries limited consequences, so published information and verification of each credential give enough confidence. A full audit is disproportionate. Having no evidence leaves the employer unable to trust the credential. **** **Question 3.** Which area of quality expectation covers expiry dates, revocation handling and verifiable digital format? [( )] Issuer quality [( )] Learning outcomes and level [( )] Assessment and evidence [(X)] Credential integrity [[?]] These items concern the credential as an object. **** Expiry, revocation and verifiability describe whether the credential itself can be trusted, which is credential integrity. Issuer quality concerns the organisation, and assessment concerns how achievement was judged. **** **Question 4.** The partners disagree. The issuer cannot share assessment papers because of confidentiality. What is the best response in the agreement? [( )] Drop the assessment criterion from the annex [( )] Require full papers anyway, because trust needs transparency [(X)] Agree an alternative evidence route, such as an assessment specification and a sampled observation by an agreed third party [( )] Leave the disagreement unresolved until the first review [[?]] Keep the purpose of the criterion and change the route to evidence. **** The purpose of the criterion is confidence in assessment quality. An alternative route that protects confidentiality still gives that confidence. Dropping the criterion removes the assurance, and leaving the issue open creates risk from the start. **** ## Cross-border issues ### Three kinds of difference When parties sit in different countries, three kinds of difference appear in almost every negotiation: legal, language and level. You do not need to resolve them all at once. You need to name them, decide who is responsible for each, and write clauses that survive disagreement. **Legal differences.** Countries regulate education, professions, data protection and contracts in different ways. A credential may have formal legal effect in one country and none in another. A profession may be regulated in one country and open in another. Your agreement must say which law applies to the agreement itself, which law applies to credentials and professions, and what happens when they conflict. Obtain advice from qualified legal counsel for any clause with legal effect. This course teaches you to frame the questions, not to give legal advice. **Language differences.** Credentials may be issued in one language but read in another. Terms such as "diploma", "certificate" and "licence" do not translate cleanly. The agreement must say which language version is authoritative, who translates, and how translations of credentials and criteria are checked. **Level differences.** Qualification systems describe levels in different ways. Countries may use national frameworks with different numbers of levels and different descriptors. Micro-credentials may sit outside a national framework entirely. Level comparisons need a documented method and a statement of what the comparison does and does not mean. ### Reference points you can use Several shared reference points help parties compare credentials. This course names them without going into every detail, and you should check current texts before relying on them. - The **European Qualifications Framework (EQF)** is an eight-level reference that national frameworks refer to. Many European countries have referenced their frameworks to it. - The **Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability (2022)** sets out a common description of a micro-credential and standard elements for describing one, along with principles for quality, transparency, recognition and portability. Its status is **Established**: it is a stable reference. Watch for Commission implementation reporting and national transpositions, which differ between Member States. - The **EUDI Wallet under eIDAS 2.0** is an **Emerging** topic. Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026. Germany plans its state wallet ("d-you") for 2 January 2027, with basic functions first. Regulated private sectors must accept the wallet about one year after issuance starts. Readiness varies widely between Member States. Do not assume that a partner's country has a working wallet or that educational credentials can be carried in it on a given date. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. For agreements, these reference points offer vocabulary and a starting method. They do not remove the need to check the facts for each partner country. ### Comparing three countries The graphic shows a simple comparison grid for an agreement between partners in three countries. The country names are placeholders. The point is the method: for each country, record the same questions in the same order. ### Clauses that handle differences Write cross-border clauses that do four things. 1. **Name the governing law and forum** for the agreement itself, after advice from legal counsel. If parties cannot agree, state that the agreement is a non-binding memorandum of understanding and say so clearly. 2. **Separate the agreement from legal effects.** State that the agreement does not change the legal rules on regulated professions or on formal recognition procedures in any country. Where a legal procedure exists, the agreement can speed up the evidence step but cannot replace the decision of the competent authority. 3. **Set language rules.** State the authoritative language version, who produces translations, and that credential titles stay in the original language with a translation alongside. 4. **Set a level method.** State which reference is used, who does the comparison, how disputes about level are handled, and that level comparison supports the recognition decision but is not the only factor. Data protection deserves its own clause. State which personal data is exchanged, the legal basis, the roles of each party, retention periods and the route for earner requests. Involve your data protection officer early. **Worked example: Three partners compare levels and languages** A professional body for accountants in one country (lime) wants to recognise a short finance micro-credential from a college in a neighbouring country (cyan) as partial evidence for its continuing development scheme. A multinational's corporate academy (orange) also wants to use the same credential for its regional finance team. The programme lead builds the comparison grid. The professional body's country regulates the profession. The college's country does not. The college's credential is issued in the local language only. Its level is stated on a national framework that the college's country has referenced to the EQF, but the professional body uses a different internal scale. They agree these clauses: - The agreement is a memorandum of understanding between the professional body and the college. It does not alter any rule on who may practise the profession. - The professional body accepts the credential for continuing development points only. It does not accept it for entry to the profession. - The authoritative language is English. The college provides a certified English summary of outcomes, and the credential title stays in the original language. - Level is compared through the shared EQF reference, with a short note from the college on its national framework level. The professional body's panel reviews the note and may ask for more evidence. The corporate academy signs a separate, lighter letter of agreement with the college. It accepts the credential as evidence for an internal learning path, with no legal effect beyond the company. Details are illustrative. **Practice activity: Add cross-border clauses to your draft** Take your scenario and extend it by placing one partner in a different country. Choose any two countries; label them A and B and do not claim real legal facts. 1. Build a comparison grid with the three rows from the graphic (legal status, language, level reference). Fill in plausible placeholders and mark them as assumptions. 2. Write four clauses: governing law and non-binding status, separation from legal effects, language rules, and level method. Each clause should have one to three sentences. 3. Write one data protection sentence that names the data exchanged and the retention period. 4. List two points where you would ask legal counsel for advice.

Facilitator notes

**Timing.** About 50 minutes self-paced, plus the live negotiation simulation described below. **Live element (60 to 90 minutes).** Run a negotiation simulation. Divide the cohort into groups of three: Country A body, Country B provider and an employer. Give each role a short brief with one non-negotiable and one flexible point. Include a clash, for example one party insists on its own language version being authoritative. Groups produce one agreed clause set. Observers record concessions and how they were recorded in the text. **Reminder.** Learners must not present placeholder legal facts as real. Ask them to mark every assumption. Invite a legal adviser to the session if your organisation has one. **Check the status notes.** Before delivery, confirm the current state of the Council Recommendation on micro-credentials implementation and of the national wallet rollouts in the countries your cohort uses.

### Quiz: Cross-border issues **Question 1.** A partner's profession is regulated in Country A. Your agreement is a memorandum of understanding. What should it say about the regulation? [( )] The agreement replaces the regulator's decision for credentials from partners [(X)] The agreement does not change the legal rules on regulated professions, and the competent authority still decides [( )] The agreement applies only if the regulator agrees to be a party [( )] The agreement does not need to mention regulation [[?]] Think about what an agreement between organisations can and cannot do to law. **** A private or association-level agreement cannot override regulation. Stating this protects the parties and the earners and avoids false expectations. The regulator's decision stays with the competent authority. **** **Question 2.** Which clause is the most useful for language differences? [( )] Credentials will be translated where needed. [(X)] The English version of the agreement is authoritative, the issuer supplies a certified English summary of outcomes, and credential titles stay in the original language. [( )] Each party will use its preferred language. [( )] Translation is the responsibility of the earner. [[?]] A good clause names the authoritative version, the producer of translations and the treatment of titles. **** The second clause fixes the authoritative version, assigns responsibility and protects the original title. The others are vague or leave a gap that will cause disputes. **** **Question 3.** What is the status of the EUDI Wallet in this course, and how should you treat it in an agreement? [( )] It is Established, so every partner can be assumed to hold a wallet today [(X)] It is Emerging, so check each partner country's readiness and do not assume it for educational credentials on a given date [( )] It replaces all national qualification frameworks [( )] It is a Council Recommendation on micro-credentials [[?]] Readiness varies widely between Member States. **** The wallet is an emerging topic with dates for Member State offerings and varied readiness. An agreement should not depend on it before you have checked the facts for each partner country. It does not replace qualification frameworks, and it is separate from the micro-credentials Recommendation. **** **Question 4.** Two partners use different national level scales. What is the best approach? [( )] Assume the highest levels are equal [( )] Skip level comparison, because countries cannot compare [(X)] Use a documented method through a shared reference, state who compares, state how disputes are handled and note that level is one factor among others [( )] Let each partner decide privately and never explain [[?]] The method and its limits belong in the text. **** A documented method, a named responsible party and a dispute route give transparency. Stating that level supports the decision but is not the only factor avoids over-claiming. Assuming equality or skipping comparison weakens trust. **** ## Governance ### Why agreements need governance An agreement without governance decays. People change roles, assessment methods change, credentials are updated and complaints arrive. Governance is the set of roles, routines and rules that keep an agreement accurate and trusted over time. For a recognition agreement it answers four questions: who decides, how do we monitor, how do we change things, and how do we end it. Good governance is proportionate. A light letter of agreement between two organisations needs a named contact on each side and an annual check. A multilateral framework with a dozen issuers needs a steering group, a secretariat and an admission process. Choose the smallest structure that lets you keep the promises in the agreement. ### Core governance elements **Roles.** Name an owner for the agreement in each organisation. State who can speak for the organisation, who receives notices and who is the contact for earners and verifiers. For multilateral agreements, set up a steering group with defined membership and decision rules, such as consensus or majority voting. **Monitoring.** State what is monitored, by whom and how often. Typical items are the quality criteria in the annex, changes to credentials, complaints, verification failures, and use of the agreement (for example the number of recognition decisions made). Keep monitoring light but regular. **Change control.** Set how the agreement and its annexes can be changed. The body may need all parties to agree. Annexes may be updated by the steering group with notice. Record each version with a date and a summary of changes. Say how long before a change takes effect, and what happens to credentials issued under earlier versions. **Review.** Set review dates and triggers. Fixed reviews might be annual for operational matters and every three years for the agreement as a whole. Triggers might include a change in law, a major quality incident, a change of issuer ownership or a new framework. Describe what the review looks at and what outcomes are possible: continue, amend, suspend or end. **Disputes and complaints.** Provide an escalation path. First contact between named owners, then a senior review, then a mediator or other agreed route. Provide a complaints route for earners and verifiers, and say how earners are protected while a dispute is open. **Suspension and exit.** State when a party's recognition can be suspended, for example after a serious breach of a quality criterion, and how earners holding credentials are treated. State how a party can leave, the notice period and the fate of already recognised credentials. Protecting earners is a core part of trustworthiness: credentials recognised in good faith should usually keep their effect for a stated period. ### The governance cycle The graphic shows the cycle that keeps an agreement alive. ### Protecting trust and value Two ideas from the VRITE pillars guide governance. **Value** asks whether the agreement still benefits earners, issuers and receiving parties. Track whether recognition decisions are being made, whether earners are using the effect and whether partners still find the effort worthwhile. If nobody uses an agreement, review it or end it. **Trustworthiness** asks whether partners and earners can rely on what the agreement says. Publish a short summary of the agreement, the quality criteria and the current partners. Make complaint routes visible. Record decisions and changes with dates. Agreements often use AI tools for drafting, translation or screening of evidence. General rules apply. Keep a person accountable for each decision. Do not send personal data or confidential material to tools without approval. Check machine translations of legal and quality terms with a qualified person. Record in the governance clauses where automated tools are used to process evidence, and keep a route for human review of decisions that affect an earner. **Worked example: Governance for a sector agreement and a corporate agreement** A sector association for hospitality (lime) signs a bilateral agreement with a public agency (lime) that runs a national skills register. The agreement lets the agency list the association's front-of-house micro-credential as proof of one skill. The two named owners are the association's education manager and the agency's register manager. They meet once a year to check the annex. They agree that the annex may change with ninety days' notice if both owners agree, and that credentials issued under earlier versions remain valid for two years. A review of the whole agreement is set for the third year, with an earlier review if the agency changes the register's rules. Complaints from earners go first to the issuer, then to a joint panel of both owners. Figures are illustrative. A corporate academy (orange) at an energy company agrees with two universities (cyan) to recognise each other's data skills badges inside a small consortium. Because three parties take part, they set up a steering group with one seat each and decisions by consensus. The academy lead acts as secretary and keeps a public change log. If a university changes assessment methods, it must notify the group before the change takes effect, and the group decides whether recognition continues. An exit clause gives six months' notice and protects badges already recognised. The academy HR department adds a clause that any automated screening of evidence is checked by a named person before a decision reaches an earner. **Practice activity: Write governance and review clauses** Complete your draft agreement with a governance section. 1. Name the roles: owner in each organisation, contact for earners and verifiers, and, if multilateral, the steering group. 2. State what is monitored, by whom and how often. List at least three items. 3. Write a change control clause: who approves changes to the body, who approves changes to annexes, the notice period and the treatment of existing credentials. 4. Write a review clause with a fixed date and at least two triggers. 5. Write dispute, suspension and exit clauses in two to four sentences each. Include protection for earners who hold credentials recognised in good faith. 6. Add one sentence on how any use of automated tools for evidence is controlled by a person.

Facilitator notes

**Timing.** About 45 minutes self-paced. **Live element (60 minutes).** Hold a peer review session before submission. Pair learners and give each a one-page checklist: scope, quality criteria with evidence lines, cross-border clauses, governance, annexes. Reviewers mark each item as present, unclear or missing and give one suggestion. Learners revise their drafts after the session. **Debrief questions.** Which governance clauses were hardest to agree in role-play? What happens to earners if the agreement ends tomorrow? Who answers an earner's complaint on a Friday afternoon? **Assessor calibration.** If you are an assessor, review the rubric below with another assessor using one sample draft before marking live submissions.

### Quiz: Governance **Question 1.** Which review clause is the strongest? [( )] The agreement will be reviewed when needed. [( )] The parties will meet if there is a problem. [(X)] The agreement is reviewed every three years, and earlier after a change in law or a major quality incident, with possible outcomes of continue, amend, suspend or end. [( )] The owners will review the agreement when they have time. [[?]] Look for fixed dates, named triggers and possible outcomes. **** The strongest clause combines a fixed interval, defined triggers and a list of possible outcomes. The others leave timing and decisions open, so reviews might never happen. **** **Question 2.** An issuer leaves a recognition agreement. What should the exit clause do for earners? [( )] Cancel all recognised credentials immediately [( )] Leave the matter to the earners to resolve [(X)] Keep recognition for credentials issued before exit for a stated period, and explain how earners will be informed [( )] Transfer the credentials to another issuer without notice [[?]] Trustworthiness includes protecting people who relied on the agreement. **** Earners recognised in good faith should not lose the effect overnight. A stated protection period and clear communication maintain trust. Immediate cancellation or silence harms earners. **** **Question 3.** Which approach to governance is most proportionate for a light bilateral agreement between two small organisations? [( )] A permanent steering group with a secretariat and external auditors [(X)] A named owner on each side, an annual check of the annex and a fixed date for full review [( )] No named owners, so either party can act [( )] Quarterly audits of every credential issued [[?]] Match the governance structure to the size and risk of the agreement. **** A named owner per side, an annual check and a fixed review give enough structure for a small bilateral agreement. A steering group and audits are disproportionate, and having no owners leaves no one accountable. **** **Question 4.** A partner wants to use an automated tool to screen evidence before recognition decisions. Which clause follows the general rules for AI use? [( )] The tool makes final decisions to save time [( )] Any tool may be used and personal data may be sent to it [(X)] A named person is accountable for each decision, personal data is shared only with approved tools, and earners can request human review [( )] Automated tools are banned, and no one may mention them in the agreement [[?]] People stay accountable, and data protection rules apply. **** General rules keep a person accountable for decisions, limit personal data to approved tools and give earners a route to human review. Fully automated decisions or unrestricted data sharing creates risk, and a ban that is never mentioned in the agreement gives no practical guidance. **** ## Assessment and badge ### The assessed task **Task: Draft recognition agreement with an annex of quality criteria.** You produce a draft recognition agreement of about 1,800 to 2,500 words, plus an annex of quality criteria of about 500 to 800 words. Use a real or realistic scenario with confidential details removed. The scenario must involve at least two organisations of different types (for example an association and an employer, or a provider and a public agency) and at least two countries or two sectors. Mark every assumption. Your draft must include: 1. **Parties, scope and model.** The recognition model, the parties and a scope clause that states the credentials covered and the effect of recognition. 2. **Quality expectations and evidence.** An annex with at least six numbered quality criteria across at least three areas, each with an evidence line, plus the evidence exchange route and a data protection clause. 3. **Cross-border clauses.** A comparison grid for the countries or sectors involved, and clauses on governing law and non-binding status, separation from legal effects, language and level method. 4. **Governance and review.** Roles, monitoring, change control, review dates and triggers, disputes, suspension and exit, and a statement on any use of automated tools. 5. **A cover note of up to 200 words** that explains your choices and lists two points on which you would seek legal advice. A trained assessor marks your draft with the rubric below. The file does not grade your work. Your facilitator will tell you the submission route and deadline. ### Rubric Each criterion is rated at one of three levels: Not yet, Meets, Strong. The criteria map to the learning outcomes. | Criterion | Outcome | Not yet | Meets | Strong | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1. Model, parties and scope | 1 | Model missing or scope vague; effect of recognition not stated | Model chosen and justified; scope names credentials, parties and effect | Model fits the context and is compared with an alternative; scope answers all five scope questions and states exclusions | | 2. Structure and clarity of the agreement | 1 | Structure is incomplete or hard to follow; undefined terms such as "equivalent" | Clear structure with body and annexes; key terms defined | Well organised, consistent terms, and annexes separated so that detail can change without reopening the body | | 3. Quality criteria | 2 | Fewer than six criteria, or criteria cannot be checked | At least six numbered criteria across three areas, each observable | Criteria are observable, proportionate to the effect and include thresholds and a compromise wording for a likely disagreement | | 4. Evidence exchange | 2 | Evidence route missing or unrelated to the criteria | Evidence line per criterion and an overall route with responsibilities | Route is proportionate to the effect, covers frequency and retention, and includes a data protection clause with legal basis and roles | | 5. Legal, language and level differences | 3 | Differences ignored, or legal facts invented | Comparison grid and four clauses (law and status, separation from legal effects, language, level method) with assumptions marked | Clauses are consistent with the grid, limits of the agreement are explicit, and points for legal advice are well chosen | | 6. Governance and review | 4 | Roles or review missing | Roles, monitoring, change control, review dates and triggers, disputes and exit are present | Governance is proportionate, earners are protected on suspension or exit, and the clauses show how value and trustworthiness are maintained | | 7. Responsible use of tools and data | 3, 4 | No mention of tools or data handling | One clause on automated tools and personal data that keeps a person accountable | The clause is specific, links to evidence handling and offers earners a route to human review | | 8. Quality of writing and cover note | 1 to 4 | Hard to read; cover note missing | Plain, consistent language; cover note explains main choices | Concise and precise; cover note shows trade-offs and names open risks honestly | ### Pass rule To pass, you must reach **Meets** or **Strong** on every criterion, and **Strong** on at least two criteria. If any criterion is rated "Not yet", you receive written feedback and may revise and resubmit once within the period set by your facilitator. You must also answer at least 7 of the 10 questions in the final knowledge check correctly. The knowledge check supports the task and cannot replace it. ### Evidence for the badge For the badge "Recognition Agreements Across Borders and Sectors (Ability, L4)" with alignment code ICSF-ECOS-L4-A, you submit: - your draft recognition agreement with the annex of quality criteria and the cover note; - the assessor's completed rubric, which the assessor adds; - the record of the final knowledge check result. The badge records that you met the assessment criteria in a controlled setting. It does not prove competence in any particular job or role.

Facilitator notes

**Assessor guidance.** Assessors should be trained on the rubric and should mark at least one sample draft together before live marking. Record reasons for ratings in a sentence per criterion. When a draft invents legal facts, rate criterion 5 as "Not yet" and ask the learner to mark assumptions or remove the claim. **Resubmission.** Allow one resubmission within an agreed period. Give feedback that points to the criterion and the passage, not only a rating. **Learner support.** Offer a short clinic before the deadline where learners can ask questions about the template and the rubric. Do not review full drafts in the clinic. **Record keeping.** Store drafts and rubrics according to your organisation's data protection rules and the retention period you gave learners.

### Final knowledge check **Question 1.** Four parties want one set of terms that applies to all of them, with a steering group. Which model fits best? [( )] Unilateral recognition [( )] Bilateral mutual recognition [(X)] Multilateral agreement [( )] No agreement, because many parties cannot agree [[?]] The parties share one framework of terms. **** A multilateral agreement applies the same terms to several parties and needs stronger governance, such as a steering group. This matches the description. Unilateral and bilateral models involve fewer parties. **** **Question 2.** Which element belongs in the scope clause of a recognition agreement? [( )] The names of earners who will benefit [(X)] The credentials covered, the receiving parties and the effect of recognition [( )] The marketing plan for the credentials [( )] The salary of each earner [[?]] Scope says what is covered and what recognition does. **** A scope clause names the credentials, the parties and the effect of recognition, together with conditions and duration. Names of earners, marketing plans and salaries do not belong in it. **** **Question 3.** Which criterion is written so that a partner can check it? [( )] Assessment is robust. [( )] The issuer is reputable. [(X)] Assessors are independent of the teaching team; evidence: assessor policy supplied at the start and after any change. [( )] The credential is high quality. [[?]] Look for a named item of evidence. **** The third criterion states an observable condition and names the evidence. The others rely on words such as "robust", "reputable" and "high quality" without any way to check them. **** **Question 4.** An employer grants only a hiring preference based on a partner's credential. Which evidence route is proportionate? [( )] An annual audit of every assessment by the employer [(X)] Published issuer information and verification of each credential [( )] A joint accreditation panel visiting every site [( )] No evidence, because hiring preferences are informal [[?]] Match the evidence to the weight of the effect. **** A hiring preference has limited consequences, so published information and per-credential verification provide enough confidence. Audits and panels are disproportionate, and no evidence leaves the employer exposed. **** **Question 5.** The issuer cannot share assessment papers for confidentiality reasons. What is the best response? [( )] Remove the criterion on assessment [( )] Insist on papers, because confidentiality is not a valid reason [(X)] Keep the purpose of the criterion and agree another route, such as an assessment specification and an observation by an agreed third party [( )] Postpone the decision to the first review [[?]] Keep the purpose, change the route. **** The purpose of the criterion is confidence in assessment. An alternative route that protects confidentiality still delivers that confidence. Removing or postponing the criterion weakens the agreement. **** **Question 6.** What should an agreement say about a profession that is regulated in one partner's country? [( )] The agreement overrides the regulator for partner credentials [(X)] The agreement does not change the legal rules, and the competent authority still decides [( )] The agreement applies only if the regulator signs it [( )] Nothing, because regulation is outside the agreement [[?]] An agreement between organisations cannot change the law. **** Stating that the agreement does not alter legal rules protects the parties and earners and avoids false expectations. The competent authority keeps its decision. **** **Question 7.** Which statement about the EUDI Wallet is correct for use in this course? [( )] It is Established, and all partner countries have a working wallet today [( )] It replaces the EQF [(X)] It is Emerging, with Member State offerings required by 24 December 2026 and readiness varying widely, so you check each partner country [( )] It is the same as the Council Recommendation on micro-credentials [[?]] Look for the status label and the note on readiness. **** The wallet is an emerging topic. Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026, and readiness varies. Check each partner country and do not assume the wallet supports educational credentials. It is a separate matter from the EQF and the Recommendation. **** **Question 8.** Two partners use different national level scales. What does the agreement do? [( )] Treats the highest levels as equal [( )] Avoids any level comparison [(X)] States a documented method through a shared reference, who compares, how disputes are handled, and that level is one factor among others [( )] Leaves level to each party to decide without explanation [[?]] Document the method and its limits. **** A documented method with a named responsible party and a dispute route is transparent and does not over-claim. Assuming equality or avoiding comparison weakens trust. **** **Question 9.** Which review clause is the strongest? [( )] The agreement will be reviewed when needed. [(X)] The agreement is reviewed every three years, and earlier after a change in law or a major quality incident, with outcomes of continue, amend, suspend or end. [( )] The owners will meet when they have time. [( )] Review is optional. [[?]] Fixed dates, named triggers and possible outcomes. **** The strongest clause combines a fixed interval, defined triggers and a list of outcomes. The others leave timing and decisions open. **** **Question 10.** An issuer exits an agreement. What should the exit clause do for earners? [( )] Cancel all recognition immediately [( )] Say nothing, since earners are not parties [(X)] Keep recognition for credentials issued before exit for a stated period and set out how earners are informed [( )] Require earners to retake the assessment [[?]] Earners relied on the agreement in good faith. **** Protecting earners who relied on the agreement is part of trustworthiness. A stated period and clear communication give them fair treatment. Immediate cancellation or silence harms them. **** ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. - Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability, Official Journal of the European Union. Search the EUR-Lex database for the title. - Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework (eIDAS 2.0), Official Journal of the European Union. Search EUR-Lex for the title. - Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (2017 revision), Official Journal of the European Union. Search EUR-Lex for the title. - ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), published by the International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin. Obtain the current version from ICoBC. - ICoBC course ICB-P17 Engaging Verifiers and Employers (prerequisite). Available in the ICoBC Kursbibliothek.

Facilitator notes

**Before publishing.** Check every item marked VERIFY. Confirm the current status of the Council Recommendation implementation reports, national transpositions, and the national wallet rollouts relevant to your cohort. Update the "Status as of" line with the date of your check. **Local sources.** Add national qualifications framework sources and your national authority for recognition of professional qualifications for the countries in your cohort, after confirming that they exist and are current.