# Micro-credentials in Europe: the Council Recommendation in Practice *The European approach to micro-credentials and what it asks of issuers.* ## About this course This course explains how the European Union describes micro-credentials and what that means for the people who design, issue, register and recognise them. It is course ICB-F02 in the ICoBC Kursbibliothek. It is aligned to the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill POLR "Policy and regulatory navigation" (VRITE pillar: Value), level L2 "Operate", stage K "Knowledge". At this level the skill is: identify which rules apply to a credentialing activity, follow the related procedures and escalate questions. This course covers the Knowledge stage: you learn the concepts, rules and reasons, and you show that you can explain and recognise them. **Who this course is for** - Programme and micro-credential leads - Quality, registry and admissions staff - Professional bodies and sector associations - Policy makers and public agencies - L&D and corporate academy leads **Prerequisite:** ICB-F01 Digital Badges and Credentials Essentials. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Explain the EU definition of a micro-credential and the standard elements it should carry. 2. Apply the ten principles for design and issuance to an example and identify gaps. 3. Describe how micro-credentials relate to the EQF, national qualification frameworks and ECTS. 4. Identify what corporate academies must add if they want education providers to recognise their credentials. **Workload.** Self-paced, 3 hours notional learning. Live or workshop elements are described in facilitator notes and are optional extras for groups. **Assessment.** Each module ends with a short quiz and a practice activity. The final assessment has two parts: a knowledge check of 10 questions and a short gap analysis of a sample credential against the standard elements, compared with a model answer. **Badge.** "Micro-credentials in Europe: the Council Recommendation in Practice (Knowledge, L2)", alignment code ICSF-POLR-L2-K. Evidence: passed knowledge check and completed gap analysis template. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Explain the EU definition and the standard elements | Policy context and definition | Module quiz, final knowledge check | | 1. Explain the EU definition and the standard elements | The standard elements | Module quiz, final knowledge check, gap analysis | | 2. Apply the ten principles and identify gaps | The ten principles | Module quiz, final knowledge check, gap analysis | | 3. Describe links to EQF, national frameworks and ECTS | Levels, credits and frameworks | Module quiz, final knowledge check | | 4. Identify what corporate academies must add | Corporate and non-formal issuers in the European model | Module quiz, final knowledge check | > **Status note.** Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. This course teaches the 2022 Council Recommendation as a stable reference. Watch for Commission implementation reporting and national transpositions, which can change how the Recommendation is applied in a given country. **How the quizzes work.** Every question has four options and one correct answer. After you answer correctly, an explanation appears. Use the hint if you are stuck. --- ## Policy context and definition ### Why Europe has a shared approach Short learning experiences have grown across Europe. Universities, colleges, training providers, professional bodies, public agencies and companies all offer them. Without a shared approach, learners and employers struggle to compare them, and education providers struggle to decide whether to recognise them. In 2022 the Council of the European Union adopted a Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. A Council Recommendation is a policy instrument. It is not a regulation, and it does not create a legal duty for an issuer. It sets out a shared approach that Member States are invited to follow and apply through their own systems. This matters for your daily work. When a colleague asks "does the EU require this?", the careful answer is that the Recommendation describes agreed good practice and expectations, and that national rules decide what is binding in your country. If you are unsure which national rules apply, escalate the question. That is part of the L2 skill in this course. The Recommendation has three broad aims in practice: - to help learners find and compare micro-credentials, - to help employers and education providers understand what a micro-credential shows, - to support trust between issuers across borders. The Recommendation sits alongside other European tools. Two are central to this course: the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). You meet both in module 4. ### The EU definition The Recommendation defines a micro-credential as the record of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning. Those learning outcomes have been assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria. Three ideas sit inside this definition: 1. **A record of learning outcomes.** The credential describes what the learner knows, understands and can do. It does not only say that the learner attended. 2. **A small volume of learning.** The learning is short compared with a full qualification. The definition does not fix a number of hours. 3. **Assessed against transparent criteria.** Someone assessed the learner, and the criteria were clear and published. The Recommendation also says that learning leading to a micro-credential is designed to provide the learner with specific knowledge, skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, cultural or labour market needs. Micro-credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared, and are portable. They can be standalone or combined into larger credentials. They are backed up by quality assurance following agreed standards in the relevant sector or area of activity. Notice what the definition leaves out. It does not say that a micro-credential must be digital, though digital issuance is common. It does not fix a size, level or subject. It does not say who may issue. Module 5 returns to the question of non-formal and corporate issuers. {{1}} ### Worked example and practice **Worked example: a university short course and a sector association exam** *University context.* A university's continuing education centre runs a four-week course on data protection for hospital administrators. The learner takes part in sessions, completes a case study and passes a written assessment marked against a published rubric. The centre issues a credential that lists the learning outcomes, the assessment method and the assessment criteria. This fits the definition: a record of learning outcomes, a small volume of learning, assessed against transparent criteria. *Professional body context.* A national association of accountants offers a half-day workshop on a new reporting rule. People who attend receive a certificate of attendance. There is no assessment. Under the EU definition this is a record of attendance, not a micro-credential, because no learning outcomes were assessed against criteria. The association can decide to add an assessment and learning outcomes, and then the record can qualify. The lesson: the label does not decide whether something is a micro-credential. The content of the record and the assessment behind it do. **Practice activity: test three offers against the definition** For each offer, write down whether it meets the three parts of the definition and what is missing if it does not. Then compare your notes with a colleague or with the facilitator notes. 1. A public employment agency issues a digital badge to anyone who logs in to an online module. No test is given. 2. A training provider runs a two-day course in welding safety, assesses practical skills against a published checklist and issues a record listing the outcomes. 3. A sector association gives a "membership year" badge to all members who pay their fee.

Facilitator notes

Run this as a 15-minute pair discussion. Ask pairs to name the missing element for offers 1 and 3 (assessment and learning outcomes). Offer 2 meets the definition if the checklist is published and the record lists outcomes. Prompt discussion about borderline cases, such as an assessment that is only a self-declaration. Keep the focus on the three parts of the definition, not on the issuer type.

### Module quiz **Question 1.** What kind of instrument is the 2022 Council Recommendation on micro-credentials? [( )] A regulation that every issuer in the EU must apply directly [(X)] A policy instrument that sets out a shared European approach for Member States to apply through national systems [( )] An international standard published by a standards body [( )] A national law of one Member State [[?]] Think about whether a Recommendation creates a direct legal duty for issuers. **** A Council Recommendation invites Member States to follow a shared approach. It does not create a direct legal duty for an individual issuer. National rules decide what is binding in a given country, so questions about binding rules should be escalated. **** **Question 2.** Which three parts does the EU definition of a micro-credential contain? [( )] A digital format, a fixed number of hours and a named issuer [( )] A university partner, a level and a price [(X)] A record of learning outcomes, a small volume of learning and assessment against transparent criteria [( )] Attendance, completion and a signature [[?]] The definition is about what was learned and how it was checked. **** The definition describes a record of learning outcomes acquired after a small volume of learning, assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria. It does not require a digital format or a fixed number of hours. **** **Question 3.** A sector association gives a certificate to everyone who attends a half-day talk. No assessment takes place. How should you classify it? [( )] A micro-credential, because the talk was short [( )] A micro-credential, because the association is a recognised body [(X)] A record of attendance that does not meet the definition, because no learning outcomes were assessed against criteria [( )] A qualification at EQF level 1 [[?]] Look for the assessment. **** Without assessed learning outcomes the record shows attendance only. The association could add learning outcomes and an assessment to move towards the definition. **** **Question 4.** Which statement about the definition is accurate? [( )] A micro-credential must be issued by a university [( )] A micro-credential must be digital [(X)] The definition does not fix the issuer type or the exact size of the learning [( )] A micro-credential must always lead to ECTS credits [[?]] Check what the definition leaves open. **** The definition focuses on learning outcomes, assessment and a small volume of learning. It does not limit issuers to one type and does not set a number of hours. **** --- ## The standard elements ### What the standard elements are The Recommendation lists standard elements that a micro-credential should carry. They make the credential readable and comparable. A learner, an employer or an admissions officer should be able to find the same kinds of information in any micro-credential, wherever it was issued. The Recommendation separates mandatory elements from optional ones. The mandatory elements are: 1. Identification of the learner 2. Title of the micro-credential 3. Country or region of the issuer 4. Awarding body 5. Date of issuing 6. Learning outcomes 7. Notional workload needed to achieve the learning outcomes, in ECTS credits where possible 8. Level of the learning experience leading to the micro-credential, with reference to the EQF and, where applicable, the national qualifications framework (NQF) 9. Type of assessment 10. Form of participation in the learning activity 11. Type of quality assurance used to underpin the micro-credential The Recommendation also lists optional elements, which can be added where relevant. Examples include prerequisites needed to enrol, supervision and identity verification during assessment, grading scheme, integration and stackability options, and further information. Treat the optional list as a menu for issuers who want to give more context. Check the full list in the official text. ### Why these elements matter: Rigor and Trustworthiness The ICoBC VRITE model describes the qualities of a strong credentialing programme. Two pillars map directly onto the standard elements. **Rigor.** Learning outcomes, type of assessment, level, workload and form of participation show how demanding the learning was and how it was checked. A reader can judge the substance of the credential. **Trustworthiness.** Awarding body, country or region, date, learner identification and type of quality assurance let a reader check who stands behind the credential and whether the record is authentic and current. Seen this way, the checklist has two jobs. It makes the learning visible (Rigor) and it makes the issuer accountable (Trustworthiness). {{1}} ### Digital carriers and AI-generated content In Europe, two tools are often used to carry these elements in digital form. The European Learning Model (ELM) is a data model that describes learning opportunities, qualifications and credentials in a common structure. European Digital Credentials for Learning is the EU framework and infrastructure for issuing, holding and verifying digital learning credentials. Both are in use by institutions across Europe. The ELM served as the data model for education credentials in the DC4EU wallet pilot. A note on AI. Some issuers now use AI tools to draft learning content, outcome statements or assessment items. This does not change what a micro-credential must carry. The standard elements stay the same. The issuer remains responsible for the accuracy of every element, including learning outcomes that an AI tool helped to draft, and for the quality assurance behind the credential. A human with the right authority should review any AI-assisted text before it appears on a credential. ### Worked example and practice **Worked example: reading the elements on two credentials** *Training provider context.* A vocational training provider issues a credential titled "Safe handling of hazardous substances". The record shows the learner's name, the provider's name and country, the date, five learning outcomes, a workload of 1.5 ECTS credits (illustrative), a reference to EQF level 3, a practical assessment observed by a trainer, classroom participation and a statement that the provider is externally audited. All mandatory elements appear. A reader can judge both the rigor and the trustworthiness. *Professional body context.* A professional body issues "Advanced practice in ethics" to its members. The record shows the member's name, the title and the date. It does not list learning outcomes, workload, level, assessment type, form of participation or quality assurance. Several mandatory elements are missing, so a reader cannot judge what the holder learned or how it was checked. The body can fix this by adding the missing elements to the credential template. **Practice activity: spot the missing elements** Read this sample record and list every mandatory element that is missing. > Title: Introduction to project planning. Issued to: A. Learner. Issued by: Northfield Training Centre. Date: 3 March 2026. Learning outcomes: plan a small project; write a work breakdown structure. Workload: 20 hours (illustrative). Write the missing elements and one question you would ask the issuer about each. You will use the same method in the gap analysis at the end of the course.

Facilitator notes

Suggested answer for the practice activity: missing items are the country or region of the issuer (unless implied), the level (EQF, NQF), the type of assessment, the form of participation and the type of quality assurance. The workload is given in hours; ask whether it can also be expressed in ECTS credits. Allow 20 minutes. In a live session, ask pairs to rank the missing elements by how much they would affect an admissions decision.

### Module quiz **Question 1.** Which element tells a reader how the learner was checked? [( )] Date of issuing [( )] Awarding body [(X)] Type of assessment [( )] Title of the micro-credential [[?]] Look for the element about the check on learning. **** The type of assessment states how the learning outcomes were checked, for example a written test or an observed practical task. **** **Question 2.** Which pair of elements most directly supports Trustworthiness in the ICoBC mapping? [( )] Learning outcomes and level [( )] Workload and form of participation [(X)] Awarding body and type of quality assurance [( )] Title and learning outcomes [[?]] Trustworthiness is about who stands behind the credential. **** The awarding body and the type of quality assurance show who is accountable and how the credential is underpinned. Learning outcomes, level and workload mainly support Rigor. Some elements serve both pillars. **** **Question 3.** A provider uses an AI tool to draft the learning outcomes for a new micro-credential. What follows for the credential? [( )] The credential no longer needs a type of assessment [( )] The credential may leave out the awarding body [(X)] The standard elements stay the same and the issuer remains responsible for their accuracy [( )] The credential needs a different set of mandatory elements [[?]] Does the origin of a draft change what must appear? **** AI-generated content does not change the information a micro-credential must carry. The issuer stays responsible for the accuracy of every element and for the quality assurance behind it. **** **Question 4.** What is the European Learning Model (ELM) used for? [( )] Setting the legal duties of issuers [( )] Awarding ECTS credits to learners [(X)] Describing learning opportunities, qualifications and credentials in a common data structure [( )] Replacing national qualification frameworks [[?]] Think of it as a way of structuring information. **** The ELM is a data model. It supports a shared structure for learning information. In the DC4EU wallet pilot it served as the data model for education credentials. **** --- ## The ten principles ### Overview The Council Recommendation sets out ten principles for the design and issuance of micro-credentials. Issuers can use them as a check on their own practice, and quality staff and admissions teams can use them to judge a credential they receive. As a Recommendation, they describe good practice that Member States are invited to support. The ten principles are: 1. **Quality.** Micro-credentials are subject to internal and external quality assurance. 2. **Transparency.** Micro-credentials carry clear information on the standard elements. 3. **Relevance.** Micro-credentials are designed to meet identified learning needs. 4. **Valid assessment.** Learning outcomes are assessed against transparent criteria. 5. **Learning pathways.** Micro-credentials are designed to support flexible learning pathways, including recognition of prior learning. 6. **Recognition.** Micro-credentials are designed to be recognised and, where relevant, to be accumulated. 7. **Portability.** The learner owns the micro-credential and can store and share it. 8. **Learner-centred.** Micro-credentials are designed with the learner's needs in mind. 9. **Authentic.** Micro-credentials can be verified to confirm they are genuine. 10. **Information and guidance.** Information and guidance on micro-credentials is available to learners and employers. ### Reading the principles in groups Ten items are hard to hold in mind, so it helps to group them by the question each answers. **Is it good?** Quality, valid assessment and relevance. These principles concern the substance of the learning and the check on it. **Can I read and check it?** Transparency, authentic and information and guidance. These principles concern how clearly the credential is described and how a reader can confirm it. **Does it work for the learner and the system?** Learning pathways, recognition, portability and learner-centred. These principles concern what the learner can do with the credential. Many gaps in real credentials fall into these three questions. A credential with excellent content and no verification fails the second group. A verified credential with unclear outcomes fails the first. ### Applying the principles to find gaps To apply the principles, take a credential and ask one question for each principle. Record the evidence you find, and mark a gap when there is none. Typical gaps include: - No external quality assurance, only internal checks (principle 1). - Learning outcomes that are vague, such as "understand data" (principles 2 and 4). - Assessment criteria that exist but are not shared with the learner (principle 4). - No statement on whether prior learning can count (principle 5). - A paper certificate with no way to verify it (principle 9). - No guidance for employers on what the credential shows (principle 10). Be precise. "The principle is not met" is less useful than "the credential lists no assessment criteria, so a reader cannot judge the standard applied". A precise gap statement helps the issuer to fix it, and helps you to escalate the right question. {{1}} ### Worked example and practice **Worked example: applying the principles to a university credential and an agency credential** *University context.* A university school of engineering issues "Introduction to machine learning for engineers", with seven weeks of study, 3 ECTS credits (illustrative) and a final project marked against a published rubric. The university has internal programme review and is externally evaluated through the national quality system. Credentials are digital and verifiable. The credential states whether it can count towards a degree module. Applying the ten questions, the evidence is strong for quality, valid assessment, recognition, portability and authentic. A gap appears for information and guidance: employers have no short explanation of what the credential shows. The school adds a one-page employer guide. *Public agency context.* A regional public agency issues a credential for completing a digital skills workshop for job seekers. Outcomes are written, but the assessment is a self-check quiz with no stated criteria. The credential is a PDF with no way to verify it. Gaps appear for valid assessment (no transparent criteria, no independent check), authentic (no verification) and quality (no external quality assurance is described). The agency decides to publish its criteria, add verification and describe its review process. **Practice activity: find the gaps** Read this description and list gaps against at least four principles. Write each gap as a precise sentence that says what is missing and why it matters. > A professional body offers a six-hour online course on workplace conflict. Learners watch videos and then receive a PDF certificate by email. The certificate names the course and the date. The body says the course was "reviewed by our education committee". There is no statement of outcomes, no test, and no statement on whether it counts towards anything else.

Facilitator notes

Suggested gaps: transparency (no outcomes or other standard elements), valid assessment (no test or criteria), quality (a committee review is internal; external quality assurance is not described), authentic (a plain PDF has no verification), recognition and learning pathways (no statement on use towards anything else), information and guidance (no explanation for employers). Allow 20 minutes. In a live session, ask groups to agree the three most urgent fixes and to justify the order.

### Module quiz **Question 1.** Which principle is addressed when an issuer publishes the criteria used to mark an assessment? [( )] Portability [( )] Learner-centred [(X)] Valid assessment [( )] Information and guidance [[?]] Think about transparent criteria. **** Valid assessment means learning outcomes are assessed against transparent criteria. Publishing the criteria supports it. **** **Question 2.** A credential is issued as a plain PDF that nobody can verify. Which principle is most directly affected? [( )] Relevance [(X)] Authentic [( )] Learning pathways [( )] Quality [[?]] The question is whether a reader can confirm the credential is genuine. **** The authentic principle concerns the ability to verify that a credential is genuine. A plain PDF with no verification route is a gap here. **** **Question 3.** Which of these is a precise gap statement? [( )] The credential fails the transparency principle [( )] The issuer should do better on quality [(X)] The credential lists no assessment type, so a reader cannot judge how the learner was checked [( )] The credential is not good enough for employers [[?]] A precise statement says what is missing and why it matters. **** A precise gap statement names the missing information and explains the effect on the reader. This helps the issuer to fix the gap and helps you to escalate the right question. **** **Question 4.** In the ICoBC study grouping, which group answers "Can I read and check it?" [( )] Quality, valid assessment and relevance [(X)] Transparency, authentic and information and guidance [( )] Learning pathways, recognition, portability and learner-centred [( )] Quality, recognition and portability [[?]] Look for the principles about clear information and verification. **** Transparency, authentic and information and guidance concern how clearly a credential is described and how a reader can confirm it. The grouping is a study aid and is not part of the Recommendation. **** --- ## Levels, credits and frameworks ### The EQF and national qualification frameworks The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) is a common reference framework with eight levels. Each level is described in terms of learning outcomes: knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy. Level 1 is the most basic and level 8 is the most advanced. The EQF helps people compare qualifications from different countries by relating them to a shared set of levels. Most European countries have a national qualifications framework (NQF) that is referenced to the EQF. An NQF organises the qualifications of one country into levels. When a country references its NQF to the EQF, a qualification at a given national level is linked to an EQF level. Micro-credentials do not form a separate qualification system. A micro-credential can carry a reference to an EQF level and, where applicable, an NQF level, as one of the standard elements. Whether a national system places micro-credentials in its NQF depends on national rules. This is a point where you should check the current position in your country and escalate if unclear. A level on a micro-credential describes the learning experience. It does not turn the micro-credential into a full qualification at that level. A person with a level 6 micro-credential has not gained a level 6 qualification. Readers should interpret the level as a description of the demands of that learning experience. ### ECTS and workload The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) expresses learning workload in credits. It is widely used in higher education. One ECTS credit represents a notional amount of student workload, and a full-time academic year is usually described as 60 credits. ECTS credits describe workload linked to learning outcomes. They do not describe quality or difficulty. The Recommendation asks that the notional workload of a micro-credential be stated, in ECTS credits where possible. "Where possible" matters. A university course can usually express its workload in ECTS credits. A provider outside higher education may not use ECTS, and may state workload in hours. In that case the credential should still say clearly how much learning effort it represents. Workload is notional. It is an estimate of the time a typical learner needs to reach the learning outcomes, and it includes study, practice and assessment, not only contact time. An ECTS credit on a micro-credential supports recognition by an education provider, but it does not force recognition. Each provider decides on recognition under its own rules and the applicable national rules. A micro-credential that states 3 ECTS credits does not carry an automatic right to 3 credits in another programme. {{1}} ### Stackability, ELM and what the numbers do not say The Recommendation encourages micro-credentials that can be combined, or stacked, into larger credentials. Stackability is an option for the issuer and a design decision. It depends on how the micro-credential relates to a programme, and a statement on stackability helps learners and recognising bodies. The ELM can describe how a micro-credential relates to a larger qualification, and European Digital Credentials for Learning can carry that information in digital form. Take care with three common errors: 1. Treating the EQF level of a micro-credential as a qualification level for the holder. 2. Treating ECTS credits as a promise of recognition. 3. Assuming every country places micro-credentials in its NQF in the same way. When you meet a credential with an EQF level and ECTS credits, read them as information about the learning experience. Then check the recognition rules of the education provider or competent authority that matters for your decision. ### Worked example and practice **Worked example: mapping a course to EQF and ECTS** *Training provider context.* A college offers a ten-week evening course in digital marketing analytics. The college estimates the notional workload at 75 hours of study, practice and assessment. Under the common ECTS convention of 25 to 30 hours per credit, this is about 3 ECTS credits (illustrative). The college compares the learning outcomes with the EQF level descriptors and judges that they fit level 5. It records "EQF level 5" and "3 ECTS credits" on the credential, and states that recognition by other providers is decided by those providers. *Public agency context.* A national public agency offers a training module for civil servants on public procurement rules. It does not use ECTS. It states the workload as 40 hours and references the EQF level 5 on the credential. Because the module is not part of a higher education programme, the agency does not claim credits. This is acceptable under "ECTS where possible", provided the workload and level are clear. **Practice activity: complete the mapping** For the course below, write the three pieces of information you would put on the credential for level, workload and recognition. Then say what you would need to check before stating an EQF level. > A sector association runs a 60-hour programme on supply chain risk for mid-career managers. It includes a practical assignment assessed against published criteria. The association does not use ECTS.

Facilitator notes

Expected points: workload stated as 60 hours of notional learning (or an ECTS equivalent if the association has a basis for it); a level reference only after comparing the learning outcomes with the EQF descriptors, and an NQF reference where applicable; a note that recognition is decided by receiving bodies. Before stating an EQF level, the association should check the learning outcomes against the level descriptors and the relevant national guidance. Allow 15 minutes. In a live session, invite groups to explain why they chose their level.

### Module quiz **Question 1.** How many levels does the EQF have? [( )] Five [( )] Six [( )] Ten [(X)] Eight [[?]] The levels run from basic to doctoral. **** The EQF has eight levels described in terms of learning outcomes. Level 1 is the most basic and level 8 the most advanced. **** **Question 2.** A micro-credential shows "EQF level 6". What does this tell you? [( )] The holder has gained a level 6 qualification [( )] The micro-credential is part of every national framework at level 6 [(X)] The learning experience has been described as corresponding to the demands of level 6 [( )] The micro-credential must be recognised by every university [[?]] The level describes the learning experience, not the person. **** The level is information about the learning experience. It does not turn the micro-credential into a full qualification, and it does not guarantee recognition. **** **Question 3.** A micro-credential states 3 ECTS credits. What does this support? [( )] An automatic right to 3 credits in any programme [( )] A guarantee of employment [(X)] Information on notional workload that can support a recognition decision by the receiving provider [( )] A statement on the quality of the teaching [[?]] ECTS describes workload, and recognition remains a decision. **** ECTS credits express notional workload linked to learning outcomes. They support recognition but do not force it. The receiving provider decides under its own rules. **** **Question 4.** What does the Recommendation say about stating workload when ECTS is not used? [( )] Workload may be left out [( )] The credential is invalid [(X)] The credential should still state clearly how much learning effort it represents, for example in hours [( )] The issuer must apply to a national agency for ECTS [[?]] The wording is "in ECTS credits where possible". **** ECTS is used where possible. If it is not used, the credential should still make the learning effort clear, for example by stating notional hours. **** --- ## Corporate and non-formal issuers in the European model ### Who issues micro-credentials The European approach is open to many types of issuer. Universities, colleges and training providers issue micro-credentials. So do professional bodies, sector associations, public agencies and companies, including corporate academies. The definition and the standard elements apply to all of them. Nothing in the definition limits issuing to formal education. Openness does not mean automatic recognition. Education providers decide whether to recognise a credential for admission or credit. They work under their own rules, national rules and their quality assurance arrangements. A credential that carries all the standard elements is easier to assess, but it does not oblige a provider to recognise it. For a corporate academy, the question is what the credential must show so that a provider can make an informed decision. The academy should treat that audience as a reader who does not know the company and who has to justify the decision to a quality office. ### What corporate academies must add A corporate academy that wants education providers to recognise its credentials should be able to show the following. 1. **All the mandatory standard elements.** Clear learning outcomes, workload, level, type of assessment, form of participation and type of quality assurance. A reader outside the company cannot rely on internal job titles or internal course codes. 2. **Assessment that stands on its own.** Transparent criteria, and a clear statement on who assessed and how. Assessment by the same people who sold or ran the training may raise questions, so describe safeguards. 3. **Quality assurance a third party can understand.** Describe internal review and, where possible, external review, for example an independent audit or an external evaluation. 4. **A level reference with reasoning.** An EQF reference and, where applicable, an NQF reference, backed by a short note on how the learning outcomes were compared with the level descriptors. 5. **Verifiability.** A way for a reader to confirm that the credential is genuine and current. 6. **Plain language.** Outcomes in terms an academic reader can assess, not company jargon. 7. **A statement on use and recognition.** Say what the credential can be used for and what it does not claim. Do not suggest that it grants credit or entry. None of this changes the learning itself. It changes how the learning is described and checked, so that an outside reader can judge it. {{1}} ### Worked example and practice **Worked example: a corporate academy prepares for recognition** *Corporate academy context.* The L&D lead of a manufacturing company runs an internal programme, "Lean production practitioner". Learners complete 60 hours of study and a workplace improvement project. The programme is marked by the company's own trainers. The L&D lead wants a nearby college to consider the credential for exemption from a module. The lead reviews the credential and finds these gaps: the learning outcomes use internal terms such as "Level B practitioner"; there is no EQF reference; the marking criteria are internal documents; quality assurance is described as "approved by the academy board"; and the credential is a PDF with no verification route. The lead rewrites the outcomes in plain language, compares them with the EQF level descriptors and records a level reference with a short rationale, publishes the marking criteria, adds a second assessor from outside the production team, arranges an external review by an independent training expert, and moves to a verifiable digital format. The lead also writes a statement: "This credential does not grant entry or credit; recognition is decided by the receiving provider." *College context.* The college's registry officer receives the request. She checks the credential against the standard elements and the college's recognition policy. The elements are now complete, but she escalates one question to the academic quality office: whether the external review meets the college's expectations for a third-party review. The L2 skill is visible here: identify the rules that apply, follow the procedure, and escalate what is unclear. **Practice activity: draft a recognition readiness list** You advise a corporate academy that offers a 40-hour credential on customer data analysis. Write a list of five things the academy must add or change so that a university admissions office can assess it. For each item, name the standard element or principle it supports. Keep each item to one sentence.

Facilitator notes

Possible answers: plain-language learning outcomes (transparency); a stated EQF level with rationale (levels and frameworks); published assessment criteria and an independent assessor (valid assessment); external quality assurance (quality); a verification route (authentic); a statement that recognition is the provider's decision (recognition). Allow 15 minutes. In a live session, role-play a registry officer who asks one challenging question per item.

### Module quiz **Question 1.** Does the European approach to micro-credentials limit issuing to universities? [( )] Yes, only universities may issue [( )] Yes, only bodies on a national register may issue [(X)] No, many types of issuer are covered, including professional bodies, agencies and companies [( )] No, but companies may only issue with a university partner [[?]] The definition says nothing about the issuer type. **** The definition and the standard elements apply to all issuers. Recognition by education providers is a separate decision made under their own rules. **** **Question 2.** A corporate academy gives its credential the standard elements. What follows? [( )] Education providers must recognise it [( )] It becomes a formal qualification [(X)] It is easier for a provider to assess, and the provider still decides under its own rules [( )] It no longer needs quality assurance [[?]] Complete information supports a decision but does not make it. **** Complete information helps an outside reader. It does not oblige a provider to recognise the credential. **** **Question 3.** Which addition best helps an academic reader to trust the assessment of a corporate credential? [( )] A company logo on every page [( )] A list of companies that use the programme [(X)] Published criteria and an assessor who is independent of the team that delivered the training [( )] A longer programme title [[?]] Think about transparency and independence. **** Transparent criteria and independent assessment let an outside reader judge the standard applied. Logos and lists of users do not describe the assessment. **** **Question 4.** A registry officer finds the elements complete but is unsure whether the issuer's external review meets the college's expectations. What is the right step? [( )] Reject the request without further checks [( )] Accept the request to avoid delay [(X)] Follow the recognition procedure and escalate the question to the responsible quality office [( )] Ask the issuer to rewrite the credential in a different language [[?]] The skill at this level includes escalating questions. **** At level L2 you identify the rules that apply, follow the procedure and escalate questions you cannot settle. Neither automatic rejection nor automatic acceptance follows from the situation. **** --- ## Assessment and badge ### What you do The assessment has two parts. You need to complete both for the badge. **Part A. Knowledge check.** The final knowledge check has 10 questions covering all four learning outcomes. Single choice, four options, one correct answer. Explanations appear after each question. **Part B. Gap analysis.** Compare the sample credential below with the mandatory standard elements. Use the gap analysis template, then compare your work with the model answer. **Sample credential for the gap analysis** > **Certificate of achievement.** Awarded to: Sam Ortega. Course: Leadership in practice. Awarded by: Harbour Skills Academy, a company training unit. Date: 12 May 2026. Duration: 30 hours (illustrative). Content: leadership styles, giving feedback, team communication. Grade: Pass. **Gap analysis template.** Copy this table and complete it. | Standard element | Present on the sample? (Yes / No / Partly) | What is missing or unclear | Question to ask the issuer | |---|---|---|---| | Identification of the learner | | | | | Title | | | | | Country or region of the issuer | | | | | Awarding body | | | | | Date of issuing | | | | | Learning outcomes | | | | | Notional workload | | | | | Level (EQF, NQF) | | | | | Type of assessment | | | | | Form of participation | | | | | Type of quality assurance | | | | After the table, add a short paragraph (three to five sentences) that names the two gaps most likely to prevent an education provider from recognising the credential, and explain why.

Facilitator notes

Model answer for the facilitator and for self-comparison. Present: learner identification (name), title, awarding body, date. Partly present: workload (stated in hours, not ECTS; acceptable if the hours represent notional learning effort; ask whether the figure includes study and assessment time). Missing: country or region of the issuer; learning outcomes (the sample lists topics, not outcomes); level (no EQF or NQF reference); type of assessment (only "Pass" is shown, with no method or criteria); form of participation; type of quality assurance. The two gaps that most affect recognition are the missing learning outcomes (a provider cannot compare content with its own modules) and the missing assessment and quality assurance information (a provider cannot judge the standard or who stands behind it). A good answer also notes that the issuer is a company unit and that independent assessment and verification would help. Accept any well-reasoned pair of gaps. In a live session, allow 30 minutes and ask pairs to swap and mark each other's work against this model.

### Rubric for the gap analysis | Criterion | Meets the standard | Needs more work | |---|---|---| | Coverage of elements | All eleven mandatory elements are reviewed and each is marked Yes, No or Partly | One or more elements are skipped | | Accuracy of findings | At least nine of eleven findings match the model answer, with clear reasons | Fewer than nine match, or reasons are missing | | Precision of gap statements | Each gap says what is missing and why it matters to a reader | Gap statements are general, such as "not good enough" | | Questions to the issuer | Each question is specific and could be sent to the issuer | Questions are vague or absent | | Priority judgement | The final paragraph names two gaps with sound reasons linked to recognition | The paragraph is missing or gives no reasons | ### Final knowledge check **Question 1.** Which description matches the EU definition of a micro-credential? [( )] A certificate showing that a person attended a short event [( )] A digital badge issued only by higher education institutions [(X)] The record of learning outcomes acquired after a small volume of learning, assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria [( )] A qualification at EQF level 4 or below [[?]] The definition has three parts: outcomes, small volume, transparent assessment. **** The Council Recommendation defines a micro-credential as the record of learning outcomes acquired after a small volume of learning and assessed against transparent criteria. Attendance alone does not meet this. **** **Question 2.** Which set contains only mandatory standard elements? [( )] Price, delivery platform and trainer name [( )] Company logo, programme slogan and learner photo [(X)] Awarding body, learning outcomes and type of assessment [( )] Employer name, job title and salary band [[?]] Look for elements that describe the issuer, the learning and the check on it. **** Awarding body, learning outcomes and type of assessment are all mandatory standard elements. The other sets contain items that the Recommendation does not list as mandatory. **** **Question 3.** In the ICoBC mapping, which element most directly supports Rigor? [( )] Date of issuing [( )] Country or region of the issuer [(X)] Learning outcomes together with the type of assessment [( )] Identification of the learner [[?]] Rigor is about how demanding the learning was and how it was checked. **** Learning outcomes and the type of assessment show what was learned and how it was checked, which supports Rigor. Issuer, date and learner identification mainly support Trustworthiness. **** **Question 4.** An issuer uses an AI tool to draft course content and outcome statements. What follows for the credential? [( )] The credential may omit the learning outcomes [( )] A different list of standard elements applies [( )] The issuer is no longer responsible for the accuracy of the outcomes [(X)] The standard elements stay the same and the issuer remains responsible for them [[?]] The tool used to draft text does not change what must be carried. **** AI-generated learning content does not change the information a micro-credential must carry. The issuer remains responsible for accuracy and for the quality assurance behind the credential. **** **Question 5.** A credential lists clear outcomes and criteria but is a plain PDF that cannot be verified. Which principle shows a gap? [( )] Relevance [( )] Learning pathways [(X)] Authentic [( )] Learner-centred [[?]] Can a reader confirm the credential is genuine? **** The authentic principle concerns verification. A plain PDF with no verification route leaves a gap even when the content is strong. **** **Question 6.** Which gap statement is the most useful to an issuer? [( )] The credential is weak on transparency [( )] The assessment is not good enough [(X)] The credential gives no assessment criteria, so a reader cannot judge the standard applied [( )] The issuer needs a better reputation [[?]] A useful statement says what is missing and why it matters. **** A precise statement names what is missing and the effect on the reader. This helps the issuer to fix it. **** **Question 7.** A professional body states that its micro-credential is at EQF level 5. What does this mean for the holder? [( )] The holder has gained a level 5 qualification [( )] Every education provider must recognise it at level 5 [(X)] The learning experience is described as corresponding to the demands of level 5 [( )] The national framework has been changed [[?]] The level describes the learning experience. **** The level is information about the learning experience. It does not create a qualification for the holder and does not force recognition. **** **Question 8.** A micro-credential states 4 ECTS credits (illustrative). What is the correct reading? [( )] Another programme must award 4 credits [( )] The credential is of higher quality than one stated in hours [(X)] The credential states a notional workload that can support a recognition decision by the receiving provider [( )] The issuer is a higher education institution [[?]] ECTS describes workload and does not decide recognition. **** ECTS credits express notional workload. A receiving provider decides on recognition under its own rules. **** **Question 9.** A corporate academy wants a college to recognise its credential. Which addition helps most? [( )] A longer description of the company history [( )] A promise that the college will gain company partnerships [(X)] Plain-language outcomes, published assessment criteria, understandable quality assurance and a verification route [( )] A change of the credential title to include the word "academic" [[?]] The college needs information to judge the learning and the check. **** An outside reader needs clear information on the learning, the assessment, the quality assurance and how to verify the credential. Marketing material and title changes do not provide this. **** **Question 10.** A registry officer finds that an incoming micro-credential has all the elements but is unsure whether the issuer's quality assurance meets local expectations. What should the officer do? [( )] Accept it to avoid delay [( )] Reject it without further checks [(X)] Follow the recognition procedure and escalate the question to the responsible quality office [( )] Ask the learner to resit the assessment [[?]] The skill at this level includes escalating questions. **** At level L2 you identify which rules apply, follow the related procedures and escalate questions. The officer neither accepts nor rejects without checking. **** ### Pass rule and badge evidence **Pass rule.** - Part A: at least 8 of 10 questions correct (80 per cent). You may retry the knowledge check. Read the explanations before you retry. - Part B: the gap analysis meets the standard on all five rubric criteria after comparison with the model answer. If a criterion needs more work, revise and resubmit. **Evidence submitted for the badge.** 1. A record of the passed knowledge check. 2. The completed gap analysis template, with the closing paragraph. **Badge.** "Micro-credentials in Europe: the Council Recommendation in Practice (Knowledge, L2)", alignment code ICSF-POLR-L2-K. Completing this course shows that you understand the concepts and rules covered. It does not prove competency in a job role. The badge records a Knowledge-stage result at level L2 of the ICSF skill "Policy and regulatory navigation".

Facilitator notes

For group delivery, a 90-minute workshop can follow the self-paced part. Suggested outline: 10 minutes to review common errors in the module quizzes; 30 minutes for pairs to complete the gap analysis on a second sample credential from their own organisation (with permission); 30 minutes to compare findings and agree escalation routes in each organisation; 20 minutes to discuss national arrangements for recognition and the placing of micro-credentials in the NQF. Encourage participants to bring their own credential templates and to list local rules that apply.

--- ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. **Official texts** - Council of the European Union, *Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability*, published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Check the official text for the exact definition, the standard elements and the ten principles. - Council of the European Union, *Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning*, published in the Official Journal of the European Union. This text describes the eight EQF levels. **Framework and credit system owners** - European Commission, *ECTS Users' Guide*. The official guide to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. - European Commission, European Learning Model and European Digital Credentials for Learning documentation, published through the Commission's Europass and European Digital Credentials resources. **Quality and national arrangements** - National coordination points for the EQF in your country, which publish the referencing of the national qualifications framework to the EQF. Search for your national authority. - European Commission reports on the implementation of the Council Recommendation, when published. Watch for Commission implementation reporting and national transpositions. **ICoBC resources** - ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill POLR "Policy and regulatory navigation". - ICB-F01 Digital Badges and Credentials Essentials, the prerequisite for this course. **Time-sensitive facts in this course.** The status of the Council Recommendation as a stable reference, the use of the ELM and European Digital Credentials for Learning by institutions across Europe, and the role of the ELM as the data model for education credentials in the DC4EU wallet pilot. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.