Combatting Discrimination in the European Union

4. Laws and policies for combatting discrimination and promoting equality and inclusion

Abstract

Over the past 60 years, European countries have intensified their efforts to fight discrimination and promote equality and inclusion, in step with European Union (EU) legislative and policy developments. In this context, this chapter draws on the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire to examine national laws and policies aimed at fostering inclusion and equality for groups facing discrimination. While some OECD EU countries adopt comprehensive approaches to address discrimination against all at-risk groups, many focus on specific populations. Most prominently, prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination and disability discrimination generally outstrip protections for LGBTI people and religious minorities – reflecting differences in the scope of EU anti‑discrimination laws, national political priorities, demographic trends, patterns of discrimination, societal attitudes and levels of support for policy reform. To further improve protections, EU laws should be harmonised across grounds and countries should continue their efforts to design policies that meet the needs of at-risk groups.

The scope and purpose of the European Union’s (EU) anti-discrimination legislative and policy framework have evolved significantly over the past 60 years. What began as a narrow focus on nationality rights and equal pay for women to facilitate the common market, has since expanded to encompass a broad set of economic, social, political and human rights for all.1 The EU now has policy guidance and legislation to promote the equality and inclusion of people based on their ethnicity and race, disability, sexual orientation, age and religion.2

The rise of inclusion and equality measures in the EU reflects a strong belief in their efficacy – with 69% of Europeans stating in 2023 that efforts to fight discrimination in their country are moderately or very effective, and 58% agreeing that Roma integration in the fields of education, health, housing, and employment is effective, up from 57% and 38% in 2012, respectively (European Commission, 2023[1]; European Commission, 2012[2]). Similarly, the Opportunities Module of the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey shows there is broad support for continued action to fight discrimination and promote inclusion in the EU. Most European survey respondents believe that efforts should go further to address discrimination and promote inclusion of persons with disabilities and people with low socio-economic statuses, while 42% want more effort directed at fighting ethnic and racial discrimination (Annex 4.A). Public support for greater policy action is highest among people who state that they have experienced discrimination, particularly if they are women and younger than 35.

Outside of public perceptions that anti-discrimination laws and policies are effective and should be more widely adopted, empirical research also indicates that these initiatives can mitigate inequalities, at least in some contexts (e.g. labour markets in the United States), and for some groups such as people from racialised communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)3 people and persons with disabilities (OECD, 2020[3]; Delhommer and Vamossy, 2024[4]; Donohue III, 2005[5]). For example, persons with disabilities report that their lives have improved since the introduction of disability equality laws in the United States – with more opportunities to participate in society spurred by accessible transport and buildings, and community inclusion (US Commission on Civil Rights, 2000[6]) – even though their employment outcomes have not materially increased (Acemoglu and Angrist, 2001[7]).4

Further, laws that prohibit discrimination and policies that promote inclusion can also help shape social norms, values, and expectations – combatting the prejudice, stigma and stereotypes that often drive discriminatory behaviour (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023[8]). For example, in many OECD countries LGBTI acceptance increased after the introduction of same-sex marriage laws, as people perceived the legal changes as symbolic of a shift in social attitudes (OECD, 2020[9]; Valfort, 2018[10]) (Chapter 3).

In light of this strong public support and evidence on the effectiveness of anti-discrimination initiatives, this chapter takes stock of laws and policies in OECD EU countries, based on responses to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire. The questionnaire collected information on the coverage of national anti‑discrimination laws and policies to promote the equality and inclusion of groups at risk of discrimination (the forms of discrimination considered in the questionnaire are defined in Box 4.1 and more detail about the questionnaire is provided in Box 4.2). The OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire has enabled the creation of a unique dataset of initiatives that promote inclusion for key protected grounds in a wide range of policy areas – employment, education and training, health, justice, as well as anti-discrimination campaigns and efforts to increase the accessibility of the built environment, products and services for persons with disabilities. This holistic data collection exercise supports an examination of the gaps in national laws and policies, and highlights good practices that could be more widely adopted.

Most of the 215 OECD EU countries that responded to the questionnaire provide different levels of legal protection and inclusion policies across grounds, with more efforts tailored to persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities than other at-risk groups, including LGBTI people and religious minorities.6 Laws prohibiting racial discrimination and disability discrimination generally apply to more areas of life than laws covering other forms of discrimination. Likewise, inclusion policies in employment, education, training, and justice are more commonly targeted at people from racialised communities and persons with disabilities, while policies for other groups tend to be solely focused on promoting justice. The greater levels of protection afforded to persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities reflect a range of factors, such as their experiences of discrimination (Chapters 2 and 3, Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11])), national political priorities, social attitudes towards at-risk groups (Chapter 3 and Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11])) and public support for stronger policy efforts for these groups (Annex 4.A).

Differences in protections across grounds also reflect the scope of EU law. The main anti-discrimination EU laws – the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) cover different areas of life. Racialised communities are protected from discrimination in employment, education and training, social security, health and access to goods and services, whereas discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, disability and religion or belief is prohibited only in employment‑related fields (although, additional laws have enshrined duties to make products, services, audiovisual communications and the built environment more accessible for persons with disabilities). In effect, the EU minimum legislative standards provide relatively limited (i.e. employment‑related) protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, age and religion or belief.

Nevertheless, some OECD EU countries, notably Spain, have comprehensive legislative approaches to combat discrimination, and many others have developed policies and programmes to boost the inclusion of at-risk groups in society. While policy measures reflect national contexts and institutions, successful initiatives identified as part of the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire share a few key features. Policies designed around the needs and circumstances of the at-risk groups they serve are crucial for overcoming the barriers facing marginalised and stigmatised communities – whether they are community‑based programmes, tailored responses in mainstream service settings, or connector/mediator programmes that act as a bridge between the community and mainstream services. These types of policies and programmes should be seen as important complements to the universal programmes and services that are important for securing equality of opportunity for all.

This chapter is structured as follows. Section 4.1 sets out an approach for assessing measures to combat discrimination and promote inclusion and equality that are discussed in subsequent sections. Section 4.2 outlines recent developments in EU anti-discrimination laws, providing context for analysing the breadth of national laws (in Section 4.3) and policies (in Section 4.4). The chapter concludes by summarising the levels of protection and inclusive policies each OECD EU questionnaire respondent has developed for at‑risk groups – highlighting where countries have concentrated their efforts and where gaps have emerged (Section 4.5).

4.1. Approach used to assess laws and policies to promote equality and inclusion

This section sets out a conceptual approach for understanding the laws and policies for combatting discrimination and promoting the inclusion of at-risk groups. It outlines the rationales and objectives of anti‑discrimination laws and inclusion policies, while identifying key principles that underpin effective initiatives. These principles are distilled from political philosophies on equality and research on the design of laws and policies that enable equality and inclusion. In the sections that follow, these principles are applied to analyse responses to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire, with the aim of identifying good practices. The assessment of good practices is primarily principles-based, due to data limitations, though it draws on programme evaluations where available. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 5, data collection is patchy with respect to the well-being of at-risk groups and other information that could be used to assess policies and laws for fighting discrimination.

Principle: Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws

Anti-discrimination laws serve as an important line of defense in the fight against discrimination. They “translate international legal commitments to equality into actionable and enforceable rights under national law [and provide] the national legal framework necessary to define the forms of discrimination, the scope of the rights to equality, effective remedies, procedural safeguards required to secure justice for victims, and establishing positive duties to advance equality” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023, p. vii[8]). According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, comprehensive anti‑discrimination laws should:

• prohibit all forms of discrimination based on an extensive list of grounds in all areas regulated by law (Box 4.1).

• permit positive action (also known as affirmative action) to overcome the barriers to equality faced by people belonging to at-risk groups and require reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities;

• provide for effective remedies, which could include sanctions, restitution and recognition;

• establish independent equality bodies with sufficient resources, powers and functions;

• enable other measures to dismantle structural discrimination including equality impact assessments.

Box 4.1. Protected grounds and forms of discrimination that should be covered by law

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2023[8]) notes that comprehensive anti-discrimination laws should protect an open-ended list of grounds, including those recognised in international law. These include age, birth, family and marital status, colour, ethnicity, disability, health status, economic status, gender, Indigenous origin, migrant status, minority status, nationality, language, place of residence, political opinion, trade union membership or political affiliation, refugee or asylum status, sexual orientation, sex characteristics, social origin, social situation and any other status.

The forms of discrimination that should be prohibited in legislation include:

• Direct discrimination, which occurs when a person is treated less favourably because of a protected ground such as their ethnicity, sexuality or disability.

• Indirect discrimination, where an apparently neutral policy/rule that applies to everyone has an effect that disproportionately disadvantages people with a certain protected characteristic (sometimes called adverse effects or constructive discrimination).

• Harassment, which is any unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating the recipient’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

• Discrimination by association, marked by less favourable treatment of a person because they are linked to, or associated with, a protected characteristic (even though they do not possess the protected characteristic themselves).

• Discrimination by assumption, which occurs when a person is treated less favourably because they are presumed to have a certain protected characteristic (even though they may not). This form of discrimination is also called presumed discrimination or discrimination by perception.

• Discrimination by instruction, which occurs when one person instructs another to discriminate against a third party.

• Victimisation, which is any adverse treatment or adverse consequence as a reaction to a complaint or to proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment.

• Segregation, which is when people who share particular characteristics are separated and provided different access to institutions, goods, services, rights or physical environments, without their full, free and informed consent.

• Multiple (cumulative) discrimination, which occurs on two or more separate protected grounds.

• Intersectional discrimination, which acknowledges that when discrimination occurs on several grounds, it combines to create a distinct form of discrimination that is inseparable (and so cannot be treated as the addition of multiple grounds).

• Hate crimes (bias-motivated crimes or discriminatory violence), which are criminal offenses against a person or property, motivated wholly or in part by an offender’s bias against people with certain protected characteristics.

• Hate speech (or vilification), which is abusive or threatening speech, writing or behaviour against a person or group based on their protected characteristics. Under international law, countries must prohibit incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility or hatred.

While essential, comprehensive laws alone cannot eliminate discrimination, particularly for highly marginalised groups, which continue to face barriers in realising their economic, social, political and civil rights (Weber, 1998[12]; OECD, 2020[3]). Legal protections must be complemented by policies that empower individuals to achieve genuine equality. For example, disadvantaged groups may not face overt discrimination in employment but may still lack access to equal opportunities due to poverty or inadequate education. Eliminating legal barriers is not enough; people require the means and capabilities to access opportunities on an equal footing (Boston, 2018[13]).

Principle: Tailored policies and services to enhance equality of opportunity for at‑risk groups

Universal education and healthcare services, along with collective bargaining, employment protections and redistributive tax and benefit systems are critical for overcoming barriers people face in realising their equal opportunities (OECD, 2018[14]). However, these systems may inadvertently exclude people who are at risk of discrimination, particularly if they face extreme or intersecting disadvantages.

For example, as discussed in Chapter 3 and in Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11]), people who experience discrimination have an elevated risk of financial insecurity, which can act as a barrier to accessing universal services. They may be unaware of available services (particularly if they are marginalised), or may disengage if they encounter services that make them feel unwelcome, unsafe, unheard, stigmatised or overwhelmed (Productivity Commission, 2014[15]). Discrimination and negative experiences in healthcare settings, for instance, are common for LGBTI people, people from racialised communities and persons with disabilities, which in turn erode their trust in the system and dissuade them from seeking help in the future (Chapter 3).

To ensure that public services genuinely serve everyone, they should be designed with the intersecting needs of at-risk groups in mind – fostering trust, accessibility, and inclusion rather than relying on a one‑size-fits-all model. Effective strategies can include community-based service delivery and culturally responsive services7 that make individuals feel safe, comfortable, and confident in seeking support. In addition, inclusive design principles – such as Universal Design8 – should be incorporated into products, services, and built environments to ensure accessibility for all (Productivity Commission, 2014[15]; Productivity Commission, 2021[16]; Irish National Disability Authority, 2024[17]).

Principle: Policies to foster social cohesion

Enhancing equal opportunities for all people to enjoy their rights should also “tackle the cultural and social drivers of discrimination” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023, p. xviii[8]; Hamilton and Hamilton, 2024[18]). Socially divisive differences in material resources, opportunities and power can contribute to segregation and breed intergroup prejudice, resentment, distrust and hatred – moving further away from socially cohesive societies where “people regard and treat one another as equals, with respect and recognition, and without divisions of social class” (Boston, 2018, p. 81[13]; Fourie, 2014[19]; Ringelheim and Ganty, 2023[20]).

At a societal level, large disparities in income and wealth, coupled with economic insecurity, can fuel the rise of political movements that scapegoat people who are highly exposed to discrimination – particularly people from racialised communities and religious minorities (Pickett et al., 2024[21]). Conversely, OECD EU countries with a broad suite of inclusive policies and laws have high levels of acceptance of groups at risk of discrimination, as outlined in Chapter 3 and Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11]). In the EU, social acceptance of groups at risk of discrimination is generally high and has risen since 2019, although there is a handful of countries with low levels of acceptance that did not witness an increase between 2019 and 2023 (which could indicate the potential for more inclusive policies and laws) (Chapter 3 and Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11])).

Social cohesion requires a commitment to equality and non-discrimination, as well as a recognition of the dignity of all people to live freely and to participate as full members of society (Council of Europe, 2004[22]). Policies that promote equality of opportunity are important pre-requisites for building social cohesion, as they reduce unfair differences in outcomes that stem from differences in people’s circumstances (Balestra and Ciani, 2022[23]). However, such policies alone may not be sufficient to cultivate the shared societal values of recognition and respect, which are essential for socially cohesive societies (Broadhead, 2021[24]; Ringelheim and Ganty, 2023[20]).

While many initiatives operate at a local level (via, for example, inclusive social hubs, cultural events and celebrations, and intercultural and interfaith groups to build a shared understanding), national governments can also promote social cohesion through information campaigns and education, arts and cultural activities to represent minority groups, community-building grants, and prohibiting hate crimes and hate speech (Broadhead, 2021[24]; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023[8]). Awareness campaigns can be effective in preventing discrimination and reducing prejudice if information specifies how discrimination occurs (rather than spreading general messages about the immorality of discrimination) and does not shame individuals about their, often unconscious, biases (Boring and Philippe, 2021[25]; Pope, Price and Wolfers, 2018[26]). The built environment can also be a vehicle for social cohesion by dismantling residential segregation through the planning and zoning system, the creation of community spaces (such as gardens and parks), using transport systems to increase the accessibility of public spaces, and introducing co-housing projects to enable social mixing of different groups (Broadhead, 2021[24]).

Principle: Accessible enforcement mechanisms

Finally, enforcing rights to non-discrimination and equality necessitates accessible justice mechanisms (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023[8]). Without effective legal recourse, anti‑discrimination laws lack enforcement power (Productivity Commission, 2014[15]; OECD, 2020[3]). Surveys conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2023[27]; 2024[28]; 2024[29]) indicate that discrimination is rarely formally reported: only 9% of Black respondents who experienced discrimination in the preceding 12 months reported the incident or made a complaint, while the rate is 6% for Muslim respondents and 11% for LGBTI respondents. Overwhelmingly, the main reason why people do not report discrimination is because they believe nothing will happen – an indication that people who experience discrimination lack trust in the justice system (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023[27]; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[28]; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[29]).9

The OECD’s 2023 Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems emphasises the need for legal and justice services that meet the needs of people including those who are underserved or marginalised (e.g. women, children, Indigenous groups, older people and persons with disabilities) (OECD, 2023[30]). This includes offering legal information and assistance in a range of formats and languages and making procedural accommodations (OECD, 2019[31]). Further, independent and well‑resourced judiciary and equality bodies are essential for handling discrimination complaints and ensuring that victims can access justice (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023[8]).

In conclusion, combatting discrimination requires a multifaceted approach that includes comprehensive anti‑discrimination laws, accessible enforcement mechanisms and policies tailored around the needs and circumstances of groups at risk of discrimination in key fields such as employment, education and training, health and justice. While national institutions and political priorities (among a host of other considerations) will influence the design of legal and policy responses to discrimination, these principles can be applied across contexts. They have also been used to assess OECD EU countries’ laws and policies in the sections following the discussion of key milestones in the development of national anti-discrimination laws and policies (Section 4.2).

4.2. Development of OECD EU Member States’ anti-discrimination laws and policies

The past two decades have borne witness to significant developments at the EU level, which have influenced legal and policy settings in Member States. Equality has now become a primary policy objective, as highlighted by the Union of Equality in 2019 and the 2024 directives to strengthen the effectiveness of equality bodies for preventing and addressing discrimination (2024/1499 and 2024/1500) (the evolution of EU legislation and policies over the past 60 years is described in Annex 4.B).

Meanwhile, many OECD EU countries have increased the strength of their national anti-discrimination laws, at least for the protected grounds for which information is available to track developments over time. For example, protections for LGBTI people increased markedly in many OECD EU countries, with Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece and Portugal making great strides to move from below-average levels in 1999 to above-average in 2019 (Figure 4.1, Panel A). Between 1999 and 2019, same-sex partnerships were legally recognised in most OECD EU countries, and the rights to adoption and assistive reproductive technologies were established for same-sex couples (OECD, 2020[9]), and since then Slovenia, Greece and Estonia have also adopted same-sex marriage laws.

Likewise, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Spain have increased protections against discrimination based on race/ethnicity, religion and nationality in the decade to 2019 (Figure 4.1, Panel B). For example, Finland introduced new anti-discrimination legislation in 2014 to combat racism and expand enforcement mechanisms for victims including by extending the mandate of the national equality body to cover age, origin, nationality, language, religion, belief, opinion, political activity, trade union activity, family relationships, state of health, disability, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics (European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, 2019[32]; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016[33]).

Figure 4.1. Protections have expanded for people at risk of discrimination over the past decade

Changes in indices tracking LGBTI laws and racial/ethnic, religious and nationality anti-discrimination laws

Note: Panel A shows responses to the OECD Questionnaire on LGBTI-Inclusive Laws and Policies, which collected information on laws to protect LGBTI people’s civil rights, LGBTI anti-discrimination laws, protections against violence, protection against persecution abroad, inclusive human rights institutions, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, banning homosexual conversion therapy, same-sex partnership recognition, adoption rights, assisted reproduction, legal gender recognition (including non-binary gender), depathologisation of transgender identity, and postponing medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex people until they can give informed consent. OECD 35 is the average of 35 countries that responded to the questionnaire, which include Canada, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, the United States, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Denmark, Slovenia, Mexico, Slovak Republic, Estonia, Italy, Chile, Czechia, Poland, Israel, Latvia, Switzerland, Lithuania, Korea, Türkiye and Japan. Panel B depicts the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) Anti-Discrimination Strand, which assesses countries’ protections against discrimination based on race/ethnicity, religion and nationality. The assessment covers whether countries’ legislation prohibits direct and/or indirect discrimination, and/or harassment and/or instruction to discriminate in employment and vocational education, education, social protection and the provision of goods and services to the public. In addition, enforcement mechanisms for victims (shifting the burden of proof away from victims to alleged perpetrators and allowing third parties to initiate proceedings and support victims), equality body mandates and the permissibility of positive actions, are also assessed. The first instance Croatia appears in the MIPEX database is 2013 rather than 2007.

Source: OECD calculations adapted from Figure 1.2 in the OECD (2020[9]), Over the Rainbow? The Road to LGBTI Inclusion, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d2fd1a8-en; and Solano and Huddleston (2020[34]), Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) 2020, https://www.mipex.eu/anti-discrimination.

Statlink

However, rights have been restricted in a small minority of countries. Hungary, for instance, banned legal gender recognition in 2020 and adopted laws that limit the sale of children’s products that depict gender identities that differ from sex at birth or homosexuality in 2021 (Kádár, 2024[35]; Kádár, 2021[36]). Similarly, more than 50 local government resolutions in Poland have sought, since 2020, to create “zones free from LGBT ideology”, although these were deemed by administrative courts to be legally invalid in 2023, and are now no longer in force (European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[37]).

While the OECD LGBTI Inclusivity Index and the MIPEX paint a picture of how legal protections for some at‑risk groups have changed over time, they cannot give a holistic view of laws and policies for all grounds, which makes it difficult to collect equivalent data and compare the level of protection for various groups at risk of discrimination. It is important to have a consistent basis to compare the levels of protection for various at-risk groups to ensure all people have equal rights, as guaranteed under international human rights law.

The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire was developed to enable a comparative assessment of EU Member States’s laws, and review anti-discrimination policies and mainstreaming efforts in a subset of EU OECD Member States. The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire builds on previous OECD (2020[3]) exercises to collect information on laws and policies to promote workforce diversity and to combat employment discrimination across grounds – by digging deeper into the substance of anti-discrimination laws and widening the policy focus to key areas of life, like education and training, health, housing, social services, justice and safety, as well as efforts to mainstream equality throughout policymaking processes.

Specifically, the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire collects information on the forms of discrimination prohibited and the areas of life in which they apply, for the grounds of race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, religion and age (Box 4.2). Further, the questionnaire asks OECD EU Member States about their policies and programmes for promoting equality of opportunity for at-risk groups in the fields of employment, education and training, housing and transport, health and justice, as well as information and awareness campaigns. Finally, the questionnaire gathers information on OECD EU Member States’s efforts to mainstream anti-discrimination throughout their policymaking process, including by consulting with at-risk groups, training staff, maintaining predictable funding for equality activities and collecting equality data (Chapter 5).

Box 4.2. The OECD questionnaire on anti-discrimination laws, policies and mainstreaming

In 2024, the OECD designed a questionnaire to gather information on laws and policies to promote inclusion and fight discrimination based on ethnicity, race, disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and age. It is comprised of two parts: anti‑discrimination laws, and policy and mainstreaming efforts. Questionnaires were sent to delegates in April 2024 from the national employment and/or social policy ministries, which were then requested to coordinate with relevant ministries, and complete the questionnaires by June 2024 (although responses were received up until January 2025).

Anti-discrimination law component

The law component of the questionnaire is guided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2023[8]), which recommends that comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation pertain to all areas of life regulated by law – including employment, education and training, the health, social services, public safety and justice, online and in the media, the provision of and access to products and housing – and prohibit a broad suite of forms of discrimination. The questionnaire covers direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation, segregation, harassment, hate crimes, hate speech, multiple discrimination, intersectional discrimination, discrimination by association and discrimination by assumption (see Box 4.1 for definitions). Further, the questionnaire captures legislative measures to ensure people can access their rights including reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and positive actions to redress disadvantage.

To support the development and pre-filling of the questionnaire, the OECD undertook an analysis of all OECD Members’ national anti‑discrimination legislation, key case law and other legal instruments with anti-discrimination protections including employment legislation, criminal law, school legislation and healthcare legislation, among others. Legal protections administered by regional or provincial governments were not considered within the scope of the law scan. All OECD EU countries are included in the legal analysis and entries have been validated by the 21 OECD EU countries that responded to the questionnaire (only Estonia’s entry has not been validated). Moreover, all entries were cross‑checked against the country reports of the European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non‑Discrimination (2024[38]).

Policy and mainstreaming component

In addition to legal prohibitions on discrimination, the OECD questionnaire sought to collect information on policies that promote equality of opportunity and social equality for people at risk of discrimination. This component is informed by findings from Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 on the areas in which people are most at risk of experiencing discrimination and the effects of discrimination (see also Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11])), as well as desktop research into EU Equality Strategies and standards, national discrimination reviews, policy documents and research reports.

The questionnaire focuses on policies and programmes designed around the specific needs and circumstances of those at risk of discrimination. This includes ways to: dismantle barriers in education, health and justice services; create incentives to improve economic opportunities; develop campaigns to increase awareness of the nature of discrimination; and design more accessible societies for persons with disabilities. To gain a holistic view of key government services, the questionnaire covers early childhood education and care (ECEC), school, tertiary education and transitions to work, community‑based primary health services, hospitals, preventative health care, police, and legal assistance, among others. Questions on embedding non-discrimination and equality throughout government processes (i.e. mainstreaming) are also included, such as policy coordination, including affected groups in policymaking processes, equality data collection, evaluation efforts, training of public officials and funding predictability. More information on mainstreaming efforts is provided in Chapter 5.

The OECD undertook desktop research to confirm policy and mainstreaming responses and to ensure consistency across countries, for example in relation to the interpretation of ethnic-and-racial-minority equality data (Chapter 5).

However, unlike the MIPEX and OECD LGBTI Inclusivity Index, the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire presents a snapshot of protections at a point in time, rather than developments over time. A further limitation of the questionnaire is that it only covers national anti-discrimination protections,10 and only captures local or regional efforts insofar as they receive national-government funding. The focus on national-level initiatives does not imply that local initiatives are not important, but is merely a byproduct of having questionnaire respondents from national-level government agencies. Local-level initiatives are particularly important for fostering social cohesion, and there are many good practices emerging, including as part of the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities Programme, which supports cities to promote equality and share the benefits of diverse communities (Council of Europe, 2019[39]; 2024[40]). The OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire was completed by 21 OECD EU Member States, and responses are current as of April 2024, although policy developments that have occurred or planned since then are also considered where relevant.

4.3. Key findings from the OECD Questionnaire: Anti-discrimination and inclusion laws in OECD EU Member States

Findings from the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire indicate that by 2024, most OECD EU countries have fully transposed the primary European-level anti-discrimination laws – the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) – which protect people based on ethnicity and race, disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation11 (Figure 4.3). These laws prohibit the same forms of discrimination, namely direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, discrimination by instruction and victimisation (Chapter 1). They also allow EU Members to take positive actions12 to overcome disadvantages faced by at-risk grounds, and require employers to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.

However, there are marked differences in the scope of these laws, with the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) pertaining only employment-related areas, and the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) covering education and training, social protection (i.e. health and social security), social advantages and access to goods and services (including housing), as well as employment.

Beyond these directives, OECD EU countries’ legislative prohibitions are also broadly in line with other requirements on hate crimes and hate speech, such as the 2008 Framework Decision on Combatting Racism by Means of Criminal Law13 – which criminalises the public incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group based on race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin.14 In addition, most countries’ criminal codes include racially or ethnically motivated bias as an aggravating factor for sentencing (also known as bias-motivated crimes or hate crimes)15 and national laws are also in line with requirements of the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU) to treat victims, including victims of hate crimes, with equality and fair treatment in the eyes of the law (European Commission, 2022[41]).16

The transposition of EU legislation is, however, partial in some cases. For instance, in Lithuania, with the exception of disability discrimination, anti‑discrimination legislation does not explicitly prohibit discrimination in the field of social protection (which includes social security and health care) – although the Lithuanian Law on Equal Treatment requires state and local government institutions to ensure that all legal acts protect equal rights and treatment (European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[42]) and guarantee equal opportunities in providing administrative and public services. Lithuanian regulators and the judiciary interpret health care to be within the scope of the Lithuanian Law on Equal Treatment, but they have noted that the protection of discrimination in social security settings lacks clarity (Guliakaitė-Danisevičienė, 2024[43]). In other examples, Ireland does not have bias-motivated crime laws,17 and in the Netherlands, hate crimes are addressed as criminal offences with a discriminatory aspect rather than as bias-motivated crimes.18

Conversely, anti-discrimination protections are more expansive than the minimum EU standards in a majority of OECD EU countries, in two main ways (Figure 4.3). First, national laws prohibit more forms of discrimination than are explicated in the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC), Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) and the laws covering hate speech and hate crimes. For instance:

• Over half of OECD EU countries expressly prohibit discrimination by assumption and association – aligning with key judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union19 and the European Court of Human Rights.20

• Laws covering multiple discrimination are found in Austria, Belgium, Denmark,21 Greece, Germany, Luxembourg,22 Portugal, Slovenia and Spain (and is also acknowledged in recital 3 of the Employment Equality Directive and recital 14 of the Racial Equality Directive). In addition, some Polish laws, such as the Labour Code, note that discrimination can occur on one or more grounds (European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[37]).

• Belgium and Spain prohibit intersectional discrimination in their legislation, while Lithuania and Italy prohibit intersectional discrimination for some cases. In Lithuania, intersectional discrimination is prohibited in disability discrimination legislation, and in Italy the differential effects of discrimination on men and women need to be considered (which is a limited form of intersectional discrimination). While in Germany, the General Act on Equal Treatment prohibits discrimination on several grounds (European Network of Legal Experts In Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[44]) and in France, the courts allow claims on several grounds of discrimination, which has resulted in findings about multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination (European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[45]). Similarly, Finnish courts have awarded compensation on the basis of multiple discrimination and the Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal found that a claimant had been discriminated against based on the combined effect of gender, language, age and place of residence, which is considered intersectional discrimination by the definition used in this report (European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, 2024[46]).

• Segregation is prohibited in Spanish and Hungarian law, as well as in France and Belgium, in the case of racial or ethnic segregation, and for disability in Lithuania. Further, the Slovakian Schools Act (2023) prohibits segregation against Roma students.

• Hate crimes and hate speech offences based on disability, religion and sexual orientation exist in Austria, Belgium, Spain, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia.

Figure 4.2. Anti-discrimination legal protections are most extensive for ethnic and racial origin and disability

Forms of discrimination prohibited by law and the areas of life in which they apply, across 22 OECD EU countries

 

 

Note: In most OECD EU countries, there are similar protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, although approaches for legislating against gender-identity discrimination differ. In Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands gender identity is protected by gender equality or sex discrimination legislation (explicitly as gender identity or sexual identity, or implicitly because there is no conceptual distinction between gender and sex) or is considered part of the ground of sex/gender in general anti-discrimination legislation. In contrast, Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden protect gender identity as a distinct ground in general anti-discrimination legislation. In Germany, “sexual identity” in the general anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation and gender identity. In Ireland, case law has determined that gender‑based discrimination (based on whether one person is male and the other is female) includes transgender people, similarly the Polish Supreme Court has decided that gender identity is protected under sex/gender discrimination. However, there are differences in protections against sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination in Estonia. Gender identity is protected under the Estonian Gender Equality Act, which covers employment, education and training and the provision of goods and services, whereas sexual orientation is covered by the Estonian Equal Treatment Act, which transposes the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) (and thus only covers employment-related areas). As such, Panel F shows only prohibitions for sexual orientation discrimination for Estonia. In Estonia, Greece and Poland, only vocational education and training is included under “Education and training” for disability, sexual orientation, religion, and age (as well as gender identity in Greece). “Justice” refers to actions within the justice system that amount to public services rather than exercising public authority, which is not covered by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) or the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) (although victims of crime have the right to non-discrimination when engaging with victim support, restorative justice services or a competent authority, operating within the context of criminal proceedings, as per the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU)).

Source: OECD analysis based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire.

The second way in which OECD EU countries exceed the EU minimum standards is through the broader scope of their anti-discrimination laws. Close to 95% OECD EU countries have anti-discrimination laws that cover areas of life beyond those required by EU law. Many countries extend the standards set by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) to other grounds, such as disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion and age. This means that many people in OECD EU countries are protected against discrimination based on disability, age, sexual orientation and religion in the spheres of employment, education, health, social security, and when accessing goods and services, such as housing.

Some countries also prohibit discrimination by police and in online spaces, which are not explicitly addressed in the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC). For example, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain include non-discrimination by police in their criminal codes, while Belgium, Finland and Luxembourg have introduced aggravated sanctions when public servants, including the police, discriminate (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[47]).

The main mechanism for surpassing the minimum standards set by the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) is the institution of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, which protects a broad list of grounds in a wide range of fields. Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden all have comprehensive national anti-discrimination laws that extend protections to non‑employment areas for people based on their disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age, in order to be in line with the standard set by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC). In the case of Spain, the areas of life articulated in the law are much more expansive than what is required by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) (Box 4.3).

Box 4.3. Spain’s comprehensive anti-discrimination laws

Spain’s Comprehensive Law for Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination (Law 15/2022) is similar in scope to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights guidance elaborated in Section 4.1. The Spanish legislation covers an extensive range of forms of discrimination and protects people based on their birth, race or ethnic origin, sex, religion or belief, age, disability, sexual orientation or identity, gender expression, illness and health status, serological situation, genetic features, language, socioeconomic status or any other condition or personal situation.

Discrimination on all grounds is prohibited in the fields covered by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC), as well as citizen safety, justice, sports and culture, open public spaces, advertisements, media and information services, artificial intelligence and massive data management systems, and school segregation. Further, the law establishes stronger equality duties on public bodies and the private sector (including via public grants and procurement processes), requires the compilation of equality data based on self-identification (Chapter 5), obliges the government to prepare and monitor four-yearly national equality plans, and creates a new independent equality body (Equinet, 2022[48]).

These legal requirements underscore Spain’s commitment to combatting discrimination holistically and preventatively – by targeting the structural barriers to equality and introducing processes to monitor the state of discrimination and improve responses, both at an individual level and systemically.

Nevertheless, many countries with ground-specific laws also go beyond the minimum EU standards – especially for disability. Austria, France, and Lithuania have disability equality laws promoting self-determination, participation and social inclusion of persons with disabilities.23 Disability equality laws reflect countries’ commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, EU accessibility requirements24 for products, services, transport and digital environments, Europeans’ high levels of acceptance of persons with disabilities (Chapter 3) and demands for more policy action targeted towards persons with disabilities (Annex 4.A). In addition, disability law reform has become a priority for some countries in recent years, such as in Lithuania (Box 4.4).

Box 4.4. Lithuania’s disability equality law

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lithuanian Government declared that it would “work to give persons with disabilities opportunities for self-sufficiency and education and to create favourable working conditions for them” (Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020, p. 2[49]), as well as increase access to fundamental rights, involve persons with disabilities in cultural processes and devise new personalised social policy measures to better assist persons with disabilities. As part of this commitment, the Lithuanian Parliament amended the Law on the Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2024 to enhance the inclusion and equality of people with disabilities regardless of their gender, race, nationality, citizenship, language, origin, social status, faith, beliefs or views, age, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion or other characteristics.

The law guarantees the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, as well as the right to accessible environments, personalised health care, the right to communicate and receive information in Lithuanian sign language, the right to education, the right to leisure time, sports and cultural activities, the right to employment and rehabilitation, and the right to an independent life. State and local government institutions and agencies must also, within the scope of their competence, ensure persons with disabilities have equal rights and treatment.

While ground-specific legislation allows for tailored protections, it can lead to uneven legal safeguards across different groups. It may also create obstacles for individuals seeking justice for multiple or intersectional discrimination, especially where various laws must be interpreted together. The fragmentation of legal protections across grounds can be seen starkly in the handful of countries that maintain the minimum EU standards. Estonia and Poland most closely follow the EU minimum standards, and so there are stronger protections against racial and ethnic discrimination than other types of discrimination, and while Italy and Czechia go beyond the minimum EU standards for some grounds, they have relatively weak LGBT discrimination protections (Figure 4.3).

A way forward for legislative reform

As discussed above, the EU anti‑discrimination law currently provides unequal levels of protection depending on the ground of discrimination. Differences between the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) have created two tiers of protections, in which people from racialised communities are protected across a broader range of life areas than LGBT people, persons with disabilities, religious minorities, older people and young people.

This legislative imbalance has real-world consequences. In practice, it means that there is little legal incentive to prevent discrimination outside the workplace for groups not covered by the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC). As a result, LGBT people, persons with disabilities, religious minorities and others may face exclusion and unequal treatment in housing, healthcare, education, and access to services – without access to legal remedies.

Measuring the impact of these legal gaps is not straightforward, given the limitations of available data and the range of factors that influence self-reported discrimination (Chapters 1 and 2). Nevertheless, evidence from the United States (OECD, 2020[3]; Delhommer and Vamossy, 2024[4]; Donohue III, 2005[5]; US Commission on Civil Rights, 2000[6]) indicates that expanding anti‑discrimination protections is linked to improved well-being for groups at risk of discrimination. Moreover, the FRA’s 2022 EU Survey on Immigrants and Descendants of Immigrants (2023[27]; 2024[28]) reveals higher rates of discrimination Muslim people report in areas where they are not protected against discrimination based on their religion, compared to Black Europeans, who are protected against racial or ethnic discrimination in employment and non-employment settings. For example, 34% of Muslim people report experiencing discrimination in the past 12 months in housing and 17% experienced discrimination in educational settings, compared to 28% and 13% Black Europeans, respectively. Reported discrimination rates in other areas of life are comparable for these groups, and notably, 24% of Muslim people and 23% of Black Europeans reported experiencing discrimination in the previous 12 months at work, where both groups are granted protections against discrimination under the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) and Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[28]; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023[27]). This pattern reinforces the link between legal coverage and reported experiences of discrimination, and it suggests that extending protections for religion and other grounds beyond employment could meaningfully reduce inequalities.

Recognising this disparity, the EU has attempted to close the remaining gaps in anti-discrimination protections, through its proposal for a horizontal equality directive in 2008 (European Commission, 2008[50]). The proposal extends protections against discrimination based on disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, and age to a wider range of life areas – such as social protection (comprising social security and healthcare), education, and access to goods and services, including housing (Council of the European Union, 2023[51]; Council of the European Union, 2024[52]).

While a large majority of EU Member States support the horizontal equality directive, and the text has been redrafted to allay concerns in the original proposal25, unanimity has not been achieved, despite concerted efforts during the 2024 Belgian Presidency to reach agreement (Council of the European Union, 2024[52]). The European Commission has since announced, in the 2025 Commission Work Programme, its intention to withdraw the proposal within six months, and is awaiting the legislator’s reaction to this announcement (European Commission, 2025[53]).

In the meantime, European equality law has been strengthened through the passage in 2024 of the Standards for Equality Bodies (Council Directives (EU) 2024/1499 and 2024/1500), which enhance equality bodies’ ability to support of victims of discrimination and contribute to awareness raising, prevention and policy and legislative change (Section 4.4). Intensive policy development and guidance have also occurred at the European level through the support given to Member States to implement national equality strategies, invest in equality data, engage civil society organisations and share good practices (Benedi Lahuerta and Zbyszewska, 2018[54]) (Chapter 5).

As discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.4, and in Chapter 5, policy efforts to promote equality and inclusion are important, but should be pursued concurrently with legislative changes to equalise legal protections. Equal treatment cannot be fully realised while the legal framework continues to offer stronger protections to some groups than others. The proposed horizontal equality directive can still provide an example for countries wishing to close gaps in their anti-discrimination laws. This proposal maintains broad support among EU Member States and has the benefit of aligning with already established legal instruments like the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC). Alternatively, countries could look to the recent Spanish reform (Box 4.3) as a model of comprehensive anti‑discrimination law that goes well beyond the forms, grounds and areas of life covered by the minimum EU standards.

4.4. Key findings from the OECD Questionnaire: Policies and programmes to promote equality and inclusion for people at risk of discrimination

In addition to legal prohibitions on discrimination, a raft of policies and programmes have been designed to promote equality and inclusion for people at risk of discrimination. Mainstream social and economic policies play a critical role in promoting equality for people at risk of discrimination. For example all OECD EU countries ensure universal or near-universal access to core health services26 and education (OECD/European Union, 2022[55]), while most provide access to early childhood education and care, as well as affordable access to justice (OECD, 2023[56]). Many OECD countries have taken steps to ensure these services are affordable, well-located and timely – to overcome crucial barriers to access (OECD, 2023[56]) – and increasingly, policymakers’ attention is being drawn to the specific needs, preferences and circumstances of groups at risk of discrimination.

In Europe, policies tailored to people at risk of discrimination came to the fore during COVID-19. Primary healthcare service delivery models were redesigned in many OECD EU countries to reach geographically marginalised and vulnerable groups, including people from racialised communities and people with low socioeconomic status who faced heightened mortality risks (OECD, 2021[57]). Vaccine roll-out plans explicitly considered marginalised groups, such as undocumented migrants in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, while in Luxembourg, the government engaged with the local Catholic community to build trust and allay concerns about the vaccines. Similarly, the Spanish Government worked with the Roma Network to develop and disseminate a campaign to reduce vaccine hesitancy. More generally, community-based responses were mobilised to ensure people’s access to tests, care and vaccines, as well as providing information in a variety of languages and formats (Berchet, Bijlholt and Ando, 2023[58]).

Efforts to embed equality in policy design have continued beyond the pandemic. All OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire – Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden – shared examples of targeted policies to address barriers faced by people due to their ethnicity, or race, disability, LGBTI status, age, and religion.

This section presents an overview of the coverage of these countries’ policies and programmes in the fields of employment, education and training, health, justice and safety, inclusive products, services and built environments, and anti-discrimination awareness. Good examples in each of these fields are also discussed, based on the principles articulated in Section 4.1. These examples showcase different ways of facilitating people’s engagement with services, including by considering their intersecting risk factors, needs and preferences in the design and delivery of services.

In general, policies are most comprehensive for persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities, with patchier coverage for religious minorities and LGBTI people (Figure 4.3). The policy focus on these communities reflects a range of factors, including their heightened exposure to discrimination, political priorities and public support for action against racial discrimination and disability discrimination (Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Annex 4.A). Among the most active areas of policymaking are efforts to improve access to justice and build trust in law enforcement, followed by public awareness campaigns, measures to increase the inclusiveness of products and services, employment-related initiatives such as incentives, quotas and targets, and school-based programmes (Figure 4.3). Tailored healthcare services have, however, received relatively less attention from policymakers, although good practices are present in some countries.

Figure 4.3. Policies designed for groups at risk of discrimination have focused on persons with disabilities and racialised communities in education, police and justice settings

Share of the 21 OECD EU countries that have policies and programmes targeted to groups at risk of discrimination, by initiative and target group

 

Note: The respondent countries are Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Czechia and Spain are not included in the analysis of education and training programmes because they are not the responsibility of national governments. In Panel A, countries were asked about the types of programmes aimed at increasing economic opportunities, including binding employment quotas and aspirational employment targets, financial incentives for employers or to create businesses, and information on employing people from groups at risk of discrimination. For education and training, countries were asked about policies and programmes for at-risk groups in early childhood education and care (ECEC), school and tertiary education settings, as well as to ease transitions from education into work (Panel B). Socio-economic status was included as a category for education and training, since many countries design education and training funding arrangements and programmes around students’ socio-economic status, and groups at risk of discrimination may disproportionately benefit from these arrangements, given the likelihood they live in economically disadvantaged situations (Chapter 3 and Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11])). In Panel C, countries were asked about community-based services, health campaigns targeted to at-risk groups and tailored care in mainstream health settings (for instance culturally responsive models of care in hospitals). All respondent countries have (or are developing) equality bodies that deal with employment-related discrimination issues, as such, Panel D only shows countries where national equality bodies cover non‑employment issues as well. In addition, Panel D displays infinitives to build trustworthy and responsive police services, and legal assistance services for at-risk group. Panel E shows countries that have increased the accessibility of housing, government services, transport, public spaces and product standards over the past five years. In Panel F, countries were asked about whether they have national anti‑discrimination campaigns, and if so if they provide information on what constitutes discrimination, if they are aimed at changing individuals’ behaviour and if they are produced in many languages and formats that are accessible for persons with disabilities.

Source: OECD analysis based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire.

Statlink

Employment and economic programmes

Employment policy has long played a central role in advancing equality of opportunity beyond the reach of anti‑discrimination law. These policies range from implementing anonymised or “blind” recruitment practices – which remove identifying details such as names, gender, educational institutions and dates of graduation to reduce recruiter bias – to offering financial incentives for employers, paid parental leave schemes, and compulsory employment quotas or voluntary employment targets that aim to boost the participation of disadvantaged groups in the labour force (OECD, 2020[3]).

Across OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire, the most extensive efforts in this area have focused on promoting employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. This reflects the substantial barriers that persons with disabilities continue to face in accessing and maintaining employment, particularly in the open labour market. The employment rate for persons with disabilities in Europe stands at 53%, compared with 77% for persons without disabilities – and drops even further for women and young people with disabilities, to 49% and 47%, respectively (European Disability Forum, 2023[59]).

To address these disparities, more than 80% of the OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire have introduced quotas or targets to promote employment opportunities for persons with disabilities (Figure 4.3, Panel A). Many European countries operate quota‑levy systems, under which employers that do not meet disability specific quotas pay levies that are used by governments to compensate firms that employ persons with disabilities or to encourage the labour market integration of persons with disabilities in other ways (OECD, 2020[3]).

There is, however, mixed evidence on the effectiveness of these measures. While quotas and targets can have positive employment effects for people at risk of discrimination, the size of the effects varies across target groups, with white women benefitting more from quotas and targets than ethnic and racial minorities and persons with disabilities (OECD, 2020[3]). Evidence from Italy and Norway suggests that the direct employment effects for women in leadership positions do not lead to additional employment opportunities for women in more junior positions. Moreover, quotas and targets fuel concerns about fairness, as they can privilege the most economically and socially advantaged people within at‑risk groups, at the expense of people in lower socio‑economic groups – stressing the need for additional policies to promote equality of opportunity for all members of society (OECD, 2020[3]).

Financial incentives also prominently feature in OECD EU countries’ strategies to promote employment opportunities for persons with disabilities (Figure 4.3, Panel A). Some countries, like Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden provide financial assistance to employers for workplace adaptations and assistive devices. These measures are aimed at challenging assumptions about the productivity of persons with disabilities, and at ensuring the supports needed for their effective participation in work (European Disability Forum, 2023[59]). While such support may not cover all reasonable accommodations in every country, Sweden and Finland have developed more holistic approaches to supporting employment for persons with disabilities (Box 4.5). Some countries also channel financial assistance directly to individuals. Austria and Latvia offer start-up support to persons with disabilities who want to run their own businesses, while Belgium provides expert guidance and funding to help improve existing business practices. In Latvia, persons with disabilities are allowed to retain their full disability pension while working in the open labour market, reducing financial disincentives to employment (European Disability Forum, 2023[59]).

Box 4.5. Supported employment for persons with disabilities in Sweden and Finland

Sweden and Finland exemplify more proactive approaches to disability employment through supported employment models. Supported employment is an effective way of facilitating employment by responding to employers’ need, along with the needs of persons with disabilities (Swedish Public Employment Service, n.d.[60]; Inclusion Europe, 2019[61]).

Persons with disabilities apply to the Swedish Public Employment Service, which assesses each person’s skills and needs, and then maps out the support that is needed to help the person succeed at work (Swedish Public Employment Service, n.d.[62]). People may first receive access to a special support person who helps individuals practice work tasks and become work ready. Jobseekers are then placed in appropriate workplaces, be they on the open labour market or in a sheltered workshop. Employers matched with people in the programme receive wage subsidies, and the employee receives continued individualised support.

A randomised control trial of 1 000 young jobseekers with disabilities found that supported employment were more effective in keeping young men with disabilities1 in employment during the 15 months of the study, when compared to two alternative programmes (one that solely focused on the client’s needs and goals, and another that promoted cooperation between the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Swedish Public Employment Service) (Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 2017[63]; Gustafsson, 2022[64]). The success of supported employment was attributed to the additional support provided to employees and employers.

Supported employment is also available in the City of Helsinki in Finland, where job coaches work with adults on the autism spectrum, and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (European Social Network, 2014[65]; Zero Project, 2021[66]). Like the Swedish model, clients of the programme work with coaches to map their skills, identify suitable roles and receive coaching and support, while employers receive wage subsidies and support in adapting their workplaces. Jobseekers are involved in all stages of the planning process, and as much as possible, they identify their goals, what support they want, and how to involve other people in their support network. Employers receive additional incentive payments if employment is maintained for more than 16 months. While the programme is majority-funded by the City of Helsinki, the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health also provides grant funding. The aim of the programme is to support persons with disabilities move into the open labour market, in line with the goals of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (European Social Network, 2014[65]).

1. There were no significant differences in employment outcomes for young women with disabilities across the three alternative employment programmes.

For other groups at risk of discrimination, employment-related initiatives tend to focus on providing information for potential employees and employers or on wage subsidies based on age. The OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire indicates that half of OECD EU respondents provide information related to the employment of people from racialised communities and LGBTI people, while more than 40% offer information on religious minorities (Figure 4.3, Panel A). In Ireland, the Public Appointments Service undertakes outreach activities and promulgates targeted social media posts to promote employment opportunities for Roma and Travellers, LGBTI people, and Irish language groups. Similarly, public authorities in the Netherlands work with professional migrant networks, diversity groups and student associations to encourage people belonging to racialised groups to apply for public sector positions (OECD, 2020[3]).

Education and training

While discrimination based on socio-economic status is not the primary focus of this report, it is a key consideration for education policymakers and often intersects with students’ other risk factors such as their ethnic and racial backgrounds, their disabilities, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity (OECD, 2023[67]). Indeed, education policies geared towards students with disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds will likely benefit students at risk of discrimination disproportionately. As such, the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire asked countries about their educational policy settings that target students’ socio-economic backgrounds, in addition to canvassing initiatives targeting the other groups at risk of discrimination covered in this report.

Education funding arrangements often account for a student’s socio-economic status, along with their special educational needs (including disabilities). About 65% of OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire take into consideration students’ disabilities in school funding determinations, 50% account for students’ socio‑economic status, and 30% on ethnic background (mainly Roma and Indigenous populations) (Figure 4.3, Panel B). For ECEC, funding arrangements in almost 65% of respondent OECD EU countries consider students’ disabilities and socio‑economic status, and 45% target students from racialised communities (Figure 4.3, Panel B). Similarly, more than half of respondents provide needs-based higher education funding for students with low socio-economic backgrounds.

In some cases, like Finland, education funding arrangements recognise the interplay of barriers for students at risk of discrimination. Funding for Finnish school and ECEC accounts for the characteristics of the local area, such as the share of the population with disability, the unemployment rate, the concentration of migrants, languages spoken, remoteness and the size of the Sámi population (OECD, 2022[68]). These arrangements are aimed at fostering equity, reducing school segregation, expanding offering for students with physical impairments, encouraging inclusion in ECEC, and supporting students from language minorities.

While funding arrangements are typically targeted based on a student’s special educational needs, socio‑economic background or ethnic background, education programmes promote the inclusion of a wider range of groups, such as LGBTI students and students from religious minorities (in addition to students with disabilities and students from racialised communities). About 35% of OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire have school programmes27 for LGBTI students and 60% have programmes for students from racialised communities, particularly Roma students (Box 4.6; Figure 4.3, Panel B).

School programmes for LGBTI students are generally aimed at supporting self-esteem, self‑understanding and bullying prevention. For example, in Denmark, inspirational education materials have been developed that contain information and lesson planning guidance on courses for the inclusion of LGBTI students that teachers can use. The inspirational materials provide step‑by-step guides to design and carry out age‑appropriate lessons to increase students’ understanding of LGBTI issues, to help LGBTI students feel supported at school, and knowledge of referrals pathways for additional support that is specific to students’ intersectional needs (for instance community groups for LGBTI students with ethnic minority backgrounds) (National Agency for Education and Quality, 2024[69]). The materials are provided on a voluntary basis for teachers.

Box 4.6. Educational programmes for the inclusion of Roma students and communities

Many Central and Eastern Europe countries, as well as some Nordic countries, have educational programmes to increase the participation of Roma students in mainstream schools, including Roma mediators. Effective programmes train Romani people as mediators to help students, and their families, to increase their performance and well-being, and foster parental involvement in education (Rutigliano, 2020[70]). Roma mediators are seen as a way of maintaining Roma identities within mainstream educational settings and supporting school desegregation. Mediators perform various tasks including facilitating classroom communication between Roma students and teachers, aiding students in completing their studies, helping students prepare for school, and strengthening the relationship between Roma families, communities and the education system (Rus, 2006[71]).

• In Greece, the Inclusive Schools for Roma programme seeks to improve the integration of Roma children in schools by deploying Roma mediators in schools and developing training and support guides for the educational community (Institute of Eduation Policy, 2021[72]). The goals of the programme are to increase the educational attainment of Roma students in Greece, improve teachers’ and schools’ capacity to meet the educational needs of Roma students, and create opportunities for Roma parents to be active in the school community (Inclusive Schools 4 Roma, 2024[73]). The pilot programme ran from 2020-2022 and involved 200 teachers and educators, 50 Roma mediators and 20 schools, and resulted in the publication of Roma‑Inclusive Education Guidelines and a Mediator’s Guide to share lessons (Inclusive Schools 4 Roma, 2024[73]).

• Hungary’s Sure Start programme establishes ECEC centres that provide holistic familial support in disadvantaged areas with high proportions of Roma children (Rutigliano, 2020[70]). The aim of the programme is to prepare Roma children for success in school, as well as supporting families through nurse counselling, community programmes and parental groups.

Programmes for students with disabilities span the entire education and training system, and are vital for improving the employment of persons with disabilities down the track (OECD, 2022[74]) More than half of the OECD EU respondent countries to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire stated that they have ECEC and tertiary education programmes for students with disabilities, and 80% said they have disability specific school programmes (Figure 4.3, Panel B). Good practices for disability-inclusive education programmes prioritise individualised support predominantly in mainstream educational settings (OECD, 2022[74]), although in some countries, such as Austria, parents and guardians have the choice to send their children to mainstream (“integrative”) schools or special schools. Schools must develop special education plans to ensure that students with disabilities receive necessary support, including personal assistants and modifications to the curriculum (European Commission, 2023[75]).

The Finnish school system has a strong emphasis on providing specialised support to enable students with disabilities to study in mainstream educational settings rather than in special schools for students with disabilities. Students have individualised learning plans, access to special education teachers, speech therapists, psychologists within the school environment, and assistive technologies (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2023[76]). Similarly, in Lithuania, schools have to accept all students without any exceptions (but had until 1 September 2024 to refer students to another school if they were unable to guarantee assistance). Lithuanian schools are now required to provide psychological, special pedagogical or social pedagogical assistance, social, healthcare and other services, educational technical support tools, special teaching tools, and adaptation to the educational environment (European Education and Culture Agency/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023[77]).

In terms of access to post-school education and training, Ireland has designed programmes to assist students at risk of discrimination access tertiary education and transition into the workplace (Box 4.7).

Box 4.7. Diversity and inclusion in Irish higher education and transition-to-work progammes

The Centre of Excellence for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion within the Irish Higher Education Authority is responsible for sharing best practices and coordinating efforts to improve higher educational access and outcomes for groups at risk of discrimination. In 2021, the Irish Higher Education Authority conducted survey-based research on the experiences and perceptions of racial discrimination in higher education institutions, the findings of which shaped the development of an anti-racism implementation plan and anti-racism principles for Irish higher education institutions (Irish Higher Education Authority, 2022[78]; Kempny and Michael, 2021[79]). This work has informed anti-racism strategies at the institution‑level, for example the University of Galway (2023[80]) has developed a Race Equality Framework and Action Plan 2023-2027 to drive cultural and organisational change. More recently in May 2024, the Irish Higher Education Authority has opened an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Enhancement Fund to advance racial equality and awareness of intersectionality in higher education institutions (Irish Higher Education Authority, 2024[81]).

There are also specific transition-to-work programmes for persons with disabilities in Ireland. For example, GetAHEAD is a network of students and graduates with disability transitioning from tertiary education to full-time employment (Irish Association for Higher Education Access and Disability, n.d.[82]). It works to upskill people with disabilities through training events and providing information covering volunteering and work experience, interview preparation, CV writing and job seeking. In addition, the Willing and Able Mentoring Programme (WAM) provides mentoring and paid work placements for graduates with disabilities. It promotes access to the labour market for graduates with disabilities and builds employers’ capacities to integrate disabilities into the mainstream workplace. Since beginning in 2005, 680 graduates with disabilities have been placed in the public and private sectors (Irish Association for Higher Education Access and Disability, 2024[83]).

Health

Healthcare services and programmes across the OECD-EU are among the least likely policy initiatives to be designed with the specific needs of marginalised or discriminated groups in mind. Fewer than half of OECD EU respondent countries to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire tailor their health promotion and health services to the circumstances and needs of people at risk of discrimination within mainstream healthcare settings – called culturally responsive or sensitive approaches in some OECD non‑EU countries (Figure 4.3, Panel C). Culturally responsive care accommodates people’s preferences for receiving health information and adherence to treatment plans, which are shaped by their cultural practices, religious and spiritual beliefs, languages spoken, gender, age, disability, education, social class and sexual orientation.28

Culturally responsive healthcare services are not as well developed in Europe as in other OECD countries, even though these approaches contribute to better health outcomes for groups at risk of discrimination and improvements in practitioners’ knowledge and confidence, as well as increased access, use, satisfaction and trust of mainstream health services (Minnican and O’Toole, 2020[84]; Savas et al., 2024[85]). In some non-EU OECD countries, culturally responsive care forms part of national health policies, guidance materials and funding arrangements. However, in Europe, most good practices occur at the local level, with the exception of the Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities (2024[86]), which provides grant funding to religious organisations for pastoral care and spiritual support in hospital settings, and the Healthy Regions’ National Project Healthy Communities in the Slovak Republic (Box 4.8).

Box 4.8. Healthy Communities in the Slovak Republic

Healthy Regions is a state contributory organisation of the Ministry of Health, which works in eight regions in the Slovak Republic to improve Roma health outcomes (Prescriptec, 2021[87]). The Healthy Communities initiative began in the early 2000s as a community‑based service, but it expanded in 2014 with the help of EU funding to be a national health programme of health mediators who provide culturally responsive care in hospital settings and in the community (Adamová, 2020[88]). Almost 90% of the 320 staff are from marginalised Roma communities and they are employed as mediators in 400 communities (Prescriptec, 2021[87]).

Health mediators are located in gynaecology, maternity and paediatrics departments in hospitals and facilitate exchanges between healthcare professionals, Roma women and their families. Mediators are trained in the social determinants of health, patient support and conflict management, hospital departments, healthy breastfeeding habits, psychosocial support for patients, discrimination mitigation practices, child delivery and the basics of infectious diseases. They improve communication – overcoming one of the main barriers for Roma people receiving care in mainstream settings – and help their clients prepare for the hospital stays to help relieve fear and uncertainty.

By working in hospital settings, health mediators also help to deconstruct negative stereotypes that healthcare practitioners may have about Roma people. Routinely working in close collaboration promotes intercultural understanding of the structural barriers Roma communities face, which can be one of the most effective ways of reducing ethnic discrimination (Adamová, 2020[88]). These types of policy interventions can be particularly effective for increasing access to health, social and community services for people from racialised communities, when community workers have a deep understanding of the population they are serving (OECD, 2023[89]). Their success relies on a strong relationship between the service user and their case manager, along with a thorough and individualised assessment of the user’s needs and goals (Adams and Hakonarson, 2024[90]).

At the local level, the Ethnic Resources Team in Copenhagen provides a “cultural and linguistic bridge‑building function” for older people from racialised communities, health services, and residential care (Healthy Diversity, n.d.[91]). The Ethnic Resources Team coordinates support for patients and their families during their interactions with the healthcare system and trains healthcare professionals on intercultural care issues, as well as providing language interpretation, and social and spiritual support with the local community (Healthy Diversity, n.d.[91]). The Health and Care Administration typically contact the Ethnic Resources Team on behalf of the client, and then Ethnic Resources Team matches the client to a support person based on their gender, age, religion, ethnic background, and language (Peder Lykke Centre, n.d.[92]; Peder Lykke Centre, 2022[93]). Support workers are trained to provide counselling and the service is available in over 100 languages (Peder Lykke Centre, n.d.[92]; IK Studie Centre, 2021[94]).

In contrast to culturally responsive health services, community-based services are relatively more available, particularly for people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTI people and older people. These are services that are delivered primarily outside of mainstream healthcare settings, such as in the home or in a community centre (World Health Organization, 2016[95]). The OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire reveals that almost 75% of respondents from the EU have community-based health services for persons with disabilities, and close to half have services for LGBTI people and older or younger people (Figure 4.3, Panel C).

In terms of good practices for LGBTI health care, regional Belgian governments finance RainbowHouse Brussels and Çavaria to provide community-based services in the Brussel-Capital Region and Flanders (Carpinelli et al., 2023[96]). These organisations advocate on behalf of the LGBTI community, provide guidance for workplaces and educators on LGBTI inclusion, raise awareness and improve the well-being of LGBTI people, as well as designing their operations around the needs of their communities (Çavaria, 2024[97]; RainbowHouse Brussels, n.d.[98]). RainbowHouse Brussels hosts a café, social events and a range of community organisations specialising in support for young people, migrants, refugees and women, as well as lifelong learning services, legal support, health, cultural and leisure support (RainbowHouse Brussels, n.d.[98]). Çavaria operates Lumi, a Dutch‑speaking hotline, email and chat service providing general and sexual health and well-being information, as well as information on discrimination, for LGBTI people and their friends, families, teachers and carers. People using Lumi generally seek information about gender, coming out, medical and social transition, relationships and love, well-being, mental health, discrimination, hate crimes, asylum seeker processes and parenting. Lumi volunteers receive ongoing training on emerging issues affecting LGBTI people (Lumi, 2023[99]).

Evidence from the United States and Europe indicates that community-based health care can be cost‑effective, promote positive health behaviours and improve access to health services, particularly for low‑income, racialised communities (Nickel and von dem Knesebeck, 2020[100]; Kim et al., 2016[101]). Focusing on community capacity building is crucial to fully realising the potential of such services (Nickel and von dem Knesebeck, 2020[100]). For example, a community nursing pilot in Austria, which involves capacity building for older people and carers, is showing promise in this regard (Box 4.9).

Box 4.9. Community nursing in Austria

A community nursing pilot programme has been underway in Austria since 2022 to improve the health literacy and well-being of older people, with the aim of ensuring they can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. The programme seeks to address unmet needs for health care in the home, as well as loneliness and social isolation among older people (and is in line with Austria’s ageing equality mainstreaming approach, Chapter 5).

During the pilot, 150 nurses with at least two years of clinical experience will be deployed into the community, with the long-term goal of ensuring community nurses are available throughout the country. Nurses work in the community, in a practice or in the home, and they provide health care and support for older people, including identifying unmet needs, providing preventative care, information and advice to people and their families, as well as coordination with social supports to address social isolation (Community Nursing, 2024[102]; Mayer et al., 2022[103]). People typically enter the pilot following hospitalisation, as part of continuous care for chronic health conditions, because family members feel overwhelmed with caring responsibilities or because friends, family or community members are concerned that an older person cannot adequately care for themselves or are socially isolated. Through ongoing support, nurses build trust with the people they support, prompt their clients to focus on preventative health, improve clients’ understanding of their health needs and available supports, help carers to feel more confident and prioritise their own well-being, and assist clients in resuming their social contacts and hobbies within their community (Institute for Applied Research on Ageing and Carinthia University of Applied Science, 2024[104]).

The pilot has been funded under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (NextGenerationEU) and is administered by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health Care and Consumer Protection, with the Austrian National Public Health Institute having responsibility for implementation, funding processes, educational activities, coordination and reporting (Mayer et al., 2022[103]; Community Nursing, 2024[102]). The pilot is being evaluated by the Institute for Applied Research on Ageing and the Health and Nursing degree programme at the Carinthia University of Applied Sciences.

Justice and safety

All OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire have initiatives to ensure that people at risk of discrimination have access to justice, often through the support of equality bodies (Figure 4.3, Panel D). Equality bodies assist victims of discrimination, conduct research on people’s experiences of discrimination and make recommendations for law and policy reform – although there are differences across countries, with some only covering employment-related issues, and others investigating discrimination complaints in many areas of life (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden).

The recently passed Standards for Equality Bodies ((Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499) will strengthen the position of equality bodies to support all victims of discrimination, including by providing alternative dispute resolution, submitting observations to the courts and acting on behalf of victims in legal proceedings and in support of victims to defend the public interest. Equality bodies will have more power to make inquiries and decisions, as well as resources to raise awareness and contribute to discrimination prevention through consultation on legislative and policy changes, publishing equality data on the state of discrimination and reporting publicly on their functioning and progress. These reforms are aimed at increasing the visibility and effectiveness of equality bodies to combat victims’ lack of knowledge about equality bodies and their beliefs that reporting discrimination will not lead to any changes. Recent surveys of people at risk of discrimination conducted by the FRA (2023[27]; 2024[29]) reveal that equality bodies are rarely used by victims, as less than 10% of LGBTI people and less than 5% of immigrants and descendants of immigrants report discrimination to equality bodies, mainly because they had limited awareness of equality bodies or felt that nothing would happen.

In addition to equality bodies, most OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire provide services to address legal needs not necessarily related to discriminatory incidents (Figure 4.3, Panel D). Many services are targeted towards people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities, the young and LGBTI people, including Spain’s LGBTI legal support service (Box 4.10).

Box 4.10. Spain’s LGBTI legal support service

In Spain, LGBTI people can access a free telephone or online chat service called 028 Rainbow for information, legal advice, and psychosocial support if they or someone close to them have experienced any form of violence, including hate crimes, domestic violence and exclusion of children and students because of the sexual orientation. The service is based on the helpline for women facing gender-based violence, which has existed since 2007, and has been found to be part of Spain’s effective and coordinated response to combatting gender‑based violence (Borraz, 2024[105]; Spain Ministry of Equality, 2020[106]). Staff, who are trained to respond to issues facing people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sexual characteristics are available 24 hours a day, every day of the week, and can provide support in Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Basque, English and French. Further, accommodations are made for people with hearing and/or speech disabilities. Once the caller’s needs are evaluated, they are linked up to appropriate services (Spain Ministry of Equality, n.d.[107]).

In the first year of its operation since launching in July 2023, almost 10 000 calls were made to the telephone service, with 20% made after an episode of violence (mainly domestic violence and hate crimes), 17% seeking psychosocial support, 12% for legal support, followed by questions about rights and benefits, discrimination, gender identity, and situations of harassment and aggression (Morales, 2024[108]).

More than half of the surveyed OECD EU countries have also developed policing responses that are sensitive to groups at risk of discrimination, who may lack trust in the police or are vulnerable to police intimidation, coercion and profiling (Figure 4.3, Panel D). Most prominently, almost three-quarters of respondents have policing programmes to counter the risks faced by people from racialised communities (Figure 4.3, Panel D). In Belgium, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, there is guidance on preventing racial profiling in policing, with specific instructions on how to conduct border and immigration checks, in some cases (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[47]). In Spain, guidance has also been developed for police interactions with persons with disabilities to ensure their human rights are protected.

Another common approach has been to develop community-based policing, such as the establishment of working groups with local communities to raise concerns and improve policing practice in Austria and Finland, and the creation of police liaison roles in Ireland (Box 4.11), Germany and the Slovak Republic, where officers are trained to exchange with marginalised communities, facilitate their interactions with the police and build trust. These officers can also identify risks and training opportunities within police departments to prevent discriminatory practices (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[47]).

Box 4.11. Community policing in Ireland

Ireland’s community-based policing policy has evolved over the past 100 years since the establishment of An Garda Síochána (Ireland Policing Partnership Protection, n.d.[109]; Irish Community Policing Implementation Team, 2009[110]). It is a partnership-based model that prioritises a “proactive, problem‑solving style of policing” through its focus on community engagement, crime prevention and policing that addresses quality-of-life issues affecting the local community (Garda National Community Engagement Bureau, 2023[111]).

Community-based policing has been rolled out across the country so that every street, home and business is patrolled by a member of the Community Policing Team. Team members are responsible for a range of non-emergency activities, such as engaging with victims (such as following up with victims of domestic violence), neighbourhood watch schemes, juvenile case management, liaising with ethnically diverse communities, monitoring people living in their communities who represent a risk to public safety (e.g. registered sex offenders), engaging with schools, being involved in special community projects and events, and supporting protective services (Garda National Community Engagement Bureau, 2023[111]).

While tailored policing responses are most commonly used to improve relations with racialised communities, there are also cases where they have been designed to meet the needs of LGBTI people. For example, France has LGBT police liaison officers who welcome victims, take their complaints and statements, and inform them of about legal action taken and the progress of proceedings. In addition, these officers investigate complaints about homophobic or transphobic behaviour by the police. LGBT police liaison officers have been championed as part of an effective strategy for fighting homophobia and transphobia by FLAG!, the LGBT association of French police, firefighters, and agents of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice. FLAG! was created in 2001, and is supported by the French Government, to improve relations between law enforcement and the public, supports victims of homophobia and transphobia, and spreads awareness among law enforcement officers, including students from all branches of the national police (FLAG!, 2024[112]).

In another example of tailored policing responses, every police department in Finland has a team specialising in youth work, which is part of a multidisciplinary network of social workers and psychiatric nurses that promotes the well-being of children and adolescents and prevents crime (called Anchor Work) (Finnish Police, 2024[113]; Finnish Police, 2024[114]). The network intervenes early to prevent offending from escalating, and diverts adolescents out of the criminal justice system – acting as a “one-stop shop” for adolescents and their families to get the social and health supports they need (Finnish Police, 2024[113]). Along with referrals from the police, schools, family members and friends can reach out to their local Anchor Work Team if they are concerned about an adolescent in need (Finnish Police, 2024[114]). Adolescents that are connected with the Anchor Team may receive support if they are victims of domestic violence (Finnish Police, 2024[113]), and mediation services may also be offered to address youth offending. Mediation is based on restorative justice principles and allows victims to be heard, offenders to make amends and their social relations to the community to be maintained (Makhija et al., 2020[115]). In some cases, compensatory settlement agreements may also be agreed. Mediation is voluntary and it may be suggested by the victim, offender, the police, the prosecutor, or the social welfare services (Makhija et al., 2020[115]).

Inclusive products, services and public spaces

Over the past five years, products and services have become more inclusive for persons with disabilities in most OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. Almost 90% of respondents have, or are, increasing the accessibility of information, communication and technology products, transport systems and banking services (Figure 4.3, Panel E). This reflects the EU Accessibility Act (2019/882), which requires EU Members to ensure these types of products and services meet specific standards concerning format, presentation, information and functionality.

In addition to complying with the EU Accessibility Act (2019/882), many of the respondents to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire go beyond these requirements by ensuring persons with disabilities can access assistive technologies in education settings, workplaces, justice settings and health services. Accessibility of the built environment has also been prioritised. Over the past five years, 80% of respondents have increased the accessibility of public services, while nearly 70% of done so for housing (Figure 4.3, Panel E). Accessibility standards for the built environment are based on several European (EN) and ISO Standards that have been adopted by EU Member States, along with EU Member States’ national standards and guidelines (Accessible EU, 2023[116]). Some countries, such as Sweden, take an even broader view by incorporating disability inclusion throughout policy processes (Box 4.12).

While disability inclusion has been prioritised, some OECD EU countries have extended accessibility considerations to other grounds. France has introduced subsidies and legal measures to promote ageing well by redesigning public spaces, adapting housing to help people stay in their homes for longer and fighting social isolation. Ageing well and the social participation of older people are longstanding policy priorities in France – including with the introduction of solidarity-based intergenerational housing in the early 2000s. Efforts were ramped up during COVID-19, with the establishment of a free national phone line that older people could use for advice and psychological support when feeling lonely; dissemination of digital tools to keep families and friends connected; encouragement of local authorities to support older people; and mobilisation of local workers (e.g. post officers and building managers) to help older people with their daily tasks and to provide social connections (European Parliament, 2021[117]). (More information on France’s ageing mainstreaming is presented in Chapter 5.)

In Brussels, public spaces have been assessed in terms of their accessibility for people from racialised communities. Brussels’ Parliament moved to decolonise public spaces in 2020 by setting up a working group that reported in 2022 (Justice and Peace Commission, 2022[118]). The working group acknowledged that public spaces were not consistent with the vision for Brussels – where all residents could recognise themselves in public monuments – as the city is pockmarked with symbols and signs of its colonial past that preclude the inclusion of descendants of colonised people (The Working Group on the Decolonisation of the Public Space in Brussels, 2022[119]).

The working group developed a checklist to assess and transform the memory of existing statues, plaques and other symbols, and create new monuments that showcase Congolese, Rwandan and Burundian history, culture and art. Recommendations were also made on processes to create opportunities for community dialogue before decisions are made about the public space, as well as introducing a national colonial period day and other awareness raising and reflection activities. These recommendations sought to prompt broader political, educational and social reflections to help combat the colonial legacy more systematically.

To date, these recommendations have not been implemented in full due to political concerns about the implications of reparations, but they embody an innovative approach to building inclusion for racialised communities by grappling with history and understanding amongst different groups (Colard, 2023[120]). Notwithstanding these concerns, the department for planning and heritage (urban.brussels) is implementing the recommendations that sit within its remit, including developing a methodology to analyse the colonial traces in permit applications for buildings, public spaces and parks (urban.brussels, 2023[121]).

Box 4.12. Comprehensive approach to disability inclusion in Sweden

In 2017, the Swedish Government set a goal to achieve equality in living conditions and full participation for persons with disabilities in society, based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Swedish Authority for Participation, 2023[122]). The goal is backed by a disability policy, which focuses on four areas (Swedish Authority for Participation, 2022[123]).

• Universal Design is embedded in national policies for architecture and design, procurement, standardisation and research (Erdtman, Rassmus-Gröhn and Hedvall, 2021[124]). The Housing Authority and Working Environment Agency administers regulations on the design of accessible physical spaces, which include contiguous tactile pathways, contrasting colours, simple and clear connections between premises, sufficient passage dimensions, no level differences, automatic door openers, easy-to-clean interiors, continuous ventilation and the use of low emission materials (Swedish Authority for Participation, 2024[125]). The focus on Universal Design ensures that the needs of all people are incorporated into the design process as much as possible without requiring adaptation after the fact.

• Barriers and deficiencies are identified by engaging with persons with disabilities and then removed systematically.

• Individual support and solutions to ensure everyone can participate and access publicly available services. Where Universal Design cannot meet an individual’s needs, public service providers must be able to offer necessary supports.

• Preventing and counteracting discrimination by articulating the lack of accessibility as a form of discrimination, as well as implementing universal design, removing barriers and providing individualised support.

In terms of specific support to enable all people to have the opportunity to participate in society, Swedish governments help persons with disabilities live in their homes or in the community, rather than in institutional settings. Persons with disabilities may receive grants for housing adaptations, assistive technologies, transportation services for people with limited mobility, and personal assistance for people with extensive disabilities who need support in their daily lives. Supports are also available to promote inclusion in ECEC, school education, employment, cultural and leisure activities, as well as respite services for families with children with disability (Gustafsson, 2019[126]).

While responsibility for the disability goal is shared across relevant government agencies, the Swedish Authority for Participation has a role in ensuring the goal is achieved holistically. The Authority for Participation undertakes research and disseminates information on the living conditions of persons with disabilities, monitors public agencies’ implementation, and guides social actors in improving the participation of persons with disabilities in many areas of life. Guidance is also provided to persons with disabilities so they can understand their rights and the support they are entitled to under Swedish law, including in relation to employment, health, education, justice, culture and leisure, crisis preparedness, transport, procurement, the physical environment, and assistance and guide dogs. Moreover, specific guidance is given to migrants and asylum seekers with disabilities, which highlights the intersectional framework that informs disability policy.

Anti-discrimination campaigns

Half of the respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire have national information campaigns to spread awareness of disability discrimination, while over 40% have campaigns focused on discrimination based on ethnicity and race or LGBTI status (Figure 4.3, Panel F). In most cases, campaigns are not explicitly designed to change people’s behaviour, nor are they available in accessible formats for persons with disabilities or in multiple languages.

There are, however, some notable exceptions. Since 2015, Luxembourg has created campaigns to change negative stereotypes and fight racism. Art, exhibitions, films, games, graphic novels and school educational materials present personal and family histories, as well as places of historical significance to raise awareness of the lingering effects of colonialism, deconstruct stereotypes, build mutual respect and humanise the empirical evidence on discrimination in Luxembourg. Examples include the film Schwaarze Mann – A Black Man Among Us and its accompanying educational dossier and the exhibition, Cliché – Society in Migration, which provides educational resources in formal and informal settings in various formats to showcase the migration phenomenon and diversity in Luxembourg, and deconstruct stereotypes and prejudices associated with migration (Luxembourg Centre of Intercultural Education, 2024[127]; Luxembourg Centre of Intercultural Education, 2018[128]). These initiatives have been designed in collaboration with various government departments – including those with portfolio responsibility for education, culture, migrant integration, aid and development, human rights, housing and justice – artists and civil society organisations that support migrant workers and young people, and those focused on combatting racism.

In addition, the Danish Disability Council (n.d.[129]) produces campaigns to break down prejudices about persons with disabilities. Campaigns are designed for specific contexts such as school friendships and work, and available in various multimedia formats – such as podcasts, videos and educational materials for students, teachers, parents, colleagues and employers. Similarly, Germany’s Rainbow Portal! shares information and guidance to increase understanding of the experiences of LGBTI people, their history in Germany, available support services and ways to improve service delivery (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2024[130]). Practical guidance is available in German and English, and designed for healthcare professionals, daycare workers, residential care and youth workers to tailor their approaches to LGBTI people, including people with intersecting risk factors based on their age, disability and religion. The portal also includes documentary films on sport and coming out in the Catholic Church and books on the emancipatory history of LGBTI people in Germany.

In Greece, campaigns are focused on providing guidance for at‑risk groups with limited awareness of their rights and support services. The Greek Ministry of Justice (2021[131]) publishes a guide for victims of racist hate crimes on the legal framework, victims’ rights, actions victims can take and services that can assist them. The guide is supported by the visual campaign, Speak Up – Report Hate Crime, which was designed in collaboration with the European Network Against Racism, after the need for a multilingual information was identified at a workshop of the Racist Violence Response Unit of the Greek Police, the Racist Violence Recording Network and HIAS Greece, a refugee and asylum seeker service provider (European Commission, 2024[132]). Information is published in 10 languages (Greek, English, French, Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, Pashto, Albanian, Russian and Georgian), includes intersectional considerations such as hate crimes against persons with disabilities and LGBTI people, as well as information on how persons with disabilities can access inclusive services. The guide is available in locations that are frequented by people at risk of racist hate crimes such as reception centres for migrants, civil society organisations, public hospitals and police and prosecution services. The choice of these languages reflects the composition of hate crime reports to police, with large proportions of victims from Afghanistan (15%), Pakistan (12%), Albania (9%) and Syria (7%) (Greece Ministry of Justice, 2020[133]).

4.5. Conclusion: Levels of legal and policy protections in OECD EU countries

The preceding sections have highlighted the breadth of legal and policy initiatives to promote equality and inclusion for groups at risk of discrimination. While Section 4.3 revealed gaps in the coverage of OECD EU countries’ laws, this concluding section extends the analysis to policies and programmes for the countries that completed the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. To compare the support received by each at-risk group, policy and law indices were constructed based on responses to the questionnaire (Box 4.13). These indices reflect the strength of laws and policies for combatting discrimination and promoting inclusion and equality for each at-risk group in each country that completed the questionnaire.

Figure 4.5 illustrates the scope of anti-discrimination laws and inclusion policies in each of the OECD EU countries that completed the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. The panels show how the level of protection for each ground compares to the average level of protection across all grounds in each country. To interpret the figures, a score of 100% means that the protections for a particular ground in a given country are double the average level of protection in that country, which shows that this particular ground is better protected than other grounds (and vice versa for negative scores). A score of zero means that a particular ground has an average level of protection in that country. Since the levels of protection across grounds are assessed relative to the average level of protection in each country, comparisons cannot be made across countries.

When comparing the levels of legal and policy protections within countries, a few ley trends emerge. First, the legal protections in OECD EU countries do not vary as much as policy efforts because of the minimum standards required by EU law. The minimum standards encourage consistency in the legal protections across grounds, at least to some extent. As discussed in Section 4.3, EU anti-discrimination laws prohibit the same forms of discrimination and permit positive actions for all at-risk groups that are protected – namely, racialised groups, persons with disabilities, LGBT people, religious minorities, young people and older people. However, there are differences in the law indices across at-risk groups, reflecting the relative scopes of the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC), as well as hate speech and hate crimes laws, and disability inclusion laws inspired by the EU accessibility legislation and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.

In contrast, policy differences across protected grounds are more pronounced. Many OECD EU countries prioritise policy efforts for persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities. In some cases, this focus is linked to demographic factors. Countries with strong policy focuses on these grounds tend to have large proportions of persons with disabilities (in the case of Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic) and populations of migrants and their descendants or Roma populations (Czechia, Spain, Germany, Ireland and Latvia) (OECD, 2020[3]). However, Austria and Poland have strong policy efforts in these areas, despite having relatively smaller population shares, reflecting their political commitments to disability equality and inclusion, as well as inclusion of older people (Chapter 5).

On the other hand, countries like Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg have policy initiatives to promote the inclusion and equality of all groups at risk of discrimination – as illustrated by the small differences (less than 50%) in the policy and law indices across protected grounds (Figure 4.5). These countries have longstanding political commitments to promote equality and inclusion across the board, which translate to the development policies for all at-risk groups in the array of fields covered (employment, education and training, health and justice). This highlights the importance of coupling the design of policies that are specific to the needs of at-risk groups with mechanisms to embed the consideration of the effects of policy decisions on at-risk groups throughout policymaking processes (Chapter 5).

One final point is that this analysis provides a snapshot of recent efforts, but it does not fully capture the ongoing evolution of legal and policy initiatives. As described in Section 4.2, rights to non‑discrimination and equality have expanded in many countries over the past twenty years, as has policy guidance from the EU (Annex 4.B). Countries like Spain are undertaking large-scale reforms, including the introduction of a comprehensive equality law in 2022 (Box 4.3) and the creation of a dedicated Ministry of Equality. Spain’s commitment to eradicating discrimination through institutional reforms, including the redesign of its equality body, exemplifies the potential for transformative change.

These efforts demonstrate what can be achieved with a strong political commitment to equality, robust coordination of policy efforts, and active inclusion of at-risk groups in the policymaking process. Spain’s initiatives offer valuable insights into how inclusive policy changes can be pursued effectively. The next chapter will further explore the concept of equality mainstreaming and its role in advancing these efforts.

Box 4.13. Constructing law and policy indices based on the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire

Anti-discrimination law and inclusion policy indices were created to compare the breadth of protections and support across various at-risk groups – namely, based on ethnicity and race, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, age and religion. For each OECD EU country that completed the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire, indices were constructed separately for each at-risk group to assess whether countries have prioritised anti-discrimination and inclusion efforts for particular grounds or have done so holistically. The indices distil the key elements of anti-discrimination laws and inclusion policies covered in the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire in a consistent way to ensure that comparisons across grounds are made on a like-for-like basis. The method used to construct the law and policy indices is similar to other OECD indices (such as the OECD LGBTI Inclusive Index (2020[9])), and described below.

• The law index combines information on the number of forms of discrimination that are prohibited, the areas of life covered by anti-discrimination laws, whether positive actions are permitted and whether there is a requirement to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. First, a score is given based on the number of forms of discrimination that are prohibited for each protected ground (where a maximum score of 1 is given if all of the following are covered in law: direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, discrimination by association, assumption and instruction, multiple and intersectional discrimination, victimisation, segregation, hate crimes and hate speech). A similar scoring method is used for the number of areas of life regulated by the law (where a maximum score of 1 is given if employment, education and training, health, social services, justice, online and media, provision of and access to products, and housing are covered by anti-discrimination laws). Additional scores of 1 are given if positive actions are permitted. These scores are then summed and divided by 3 to create an overall score between 0 and 1, where 0 means there is no legal protection against discrimination and a score of 1 means all forms of discrimination are prohibited in all areas of life considered, as well as positive actions are permitted. For the disability ground, the law index also includes whether the law requires reasonable accommodations (0 for no, 1 for yes). This score is averaged with the other components for an overall score between 0 and 1.

• The policy index reflects countries’ initiatives that are specifically designed for groups at risk of discrimination. It examines various types of initiatives that sit within the policy areas of employment, education and training, health, justice and safety, disability accessibility and awareness campaigns. The types of initiatives that are considered within each policy area are outlined in Figure 4.4. Each broad policy area receives a score between 0 and 1, where 1 is given if a country has examples of all the types of initiatives that are covered. For example, a country will score 1 for health policy if they have community-based programmes, targeted health campaigns and tailored care in mainstream settings, and 2/3 if they have two of these three initiatives. Finally, an overall policy score is calculated by averaging the scores of all broad policy areas.

• These indices give equal weighting to the components. Specifically, the number of forms of discrimination, areas of life, whether positive actions are permitted, and reasonable accommodations are given equal weighting in the law index. For the policy index, equal weightings are given to the broad policy areas of employment, education and training, health, justice and safety, disability accessibility and awareness campaigns. This aligns with the approach used to construct the OECD (2020[9]) LGBTI Inclusive Index, which gives equal weighting to general human rights provisions for all LGBTI people and specific protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

• A similar approach was taken to create an index of equality mainstreaming efforts, which were collected as part of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. More information about the construction of the mainstreaming index is included in Chapter 5, while Chapter 3 provides an overview of the law, policy and mainstreaming indices.

Figure 4.4. Visual representation of the law and policy indices

Source: Based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire

 

Figure 4.5. There is more variation in equality policies than anti-discrimination laws across OECD EU countries

 

Note: These figures present the percentage difference between the levels of legal and policy protection for each ground and the average levels of protection across grounds. Average levels of protection are calculated separately for each country. The levels of legal and policy protections are calculated in line with Box 4.13. The figures show how the level of protection for each ground compares to the average level of protection across all grounds in each country. To interpret the figures, a score of 100% means that the protections for a particular ground in a particular country are double the average level of protection in that country (and vice versa). A score of zero means that a particular ground has an average level of protection in that country. Since the levels of protection across grounds are assessed relative to the average level of protection in each country, comparisons cannot be made across countries.

Source: OECD analysis based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire.

Statlink

References

[116] Accessible EU (2023), Accessibility of the Built Environment in the European Union, https://sensus.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ACCESSIBLE-EU-REPORT-05-Acc-Built-Env_20230725_acc.pdf.

[7] Acemoglu, D. and J. Angrist (2001), “Consequences of employment protections? The case of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109/5, https://doi.org/10.1086/322836.

[88] Adamová, M. (2020), Case Study Slovakia: Roma Health Mediators in Hospitals, https://firstyearsfirstpriority.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Case-Study_-Slovakia-2020.pdf.

[90] Adams, D. and H. Hakonarson (2024), “An integrated approach to service delivery for people with multiple and complex needs”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 305, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d837a06a-en.

[169] Agency for Clinical Innovation (2024), Culturally Responsive Practice, https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/projects/consumer-enablement/how-to-support-enablement/culturally-responsive-practice (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[171] Autour, D. and M. Duggan (2003), “The rise in the disability rolls and the decline in unemployment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118/1, pp. 157-206, https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535171.

[23] Balestra, C. and . Ciani (2022), “Current challenges to social mobility and equality of opportunity”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 10, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a749ffbb-en.

[135] Bell, M. (2021), “EU anti-discrimination law: Navigating sameness and difference”, in The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846556.003.0020.

[139] Bell, M. (2002), “Racial discrimination”, in Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Union, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244508.003.0004.

[54] Benedi Lahuerta, S. and A. Zbyszewska (2018), “EU equality law after a decade of austerity”, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, Vol. 18/2-3, pp. 163-192, https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229118799234.

[58] Berchet, C., J. Bijlholt and M. Ando (2023), “Socio-economic and ethnic health inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes across OECD countries”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 153, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6c2a96c9-en.

[25] Boring, A. and A. Philippe (2021), “Reducing discrimination in the field: Evidence from an awareness raising intervention targeting gender biases in student evaluations of teaching”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104323.

[105] Borraz, M. (2024), How Spain Became a Pioneer in the Fight Against Gender-Based Violence, https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1410018/how-spain-became-a-pioneer-in-the-fight-against-gender-based-violence.html (accessed on 14 October 2024).

[13] Boston, J. (2018), “What kind of equality matters?”, Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis, Rashbrooke, M. (ed.), Bridget Williams Book, https://doi.org/10.7810/9781927131510.

[24] Broadhead, J. (2021), Social Cohesion in Europe: Literature Review, https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_cohesion_in_europe_literature_reviewfinal.pdf.

[130] Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2024), Rainbow Portal, https://www.regenbogenportal.de/english (accessed on 16 October 2024).

[96] Carpinelli, L. et al. (2023), Good Practices Guide for LGBTI+ Inclusive Healthcare, https://lgbtq-insight-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/INSIGHT_PR1-Good-Practice-Guide_EN_FINAL.-revised.pdf.

[97] Çavaria (2024), Our Themes: An Overview of the Current Themes that Çavaria is Working On, https://www.cavaria.be/wat-doen-we/lobbywerk/dossiers.

[159] Chalmers, J. and F. Leverick (2017), A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review, https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf.

[120] Colard, S. (2023), Introduction to the Report “Decolonising Public Spaces in the Brussels-Capital Region”, https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/appropriations/533413/introduction-to-the-report-decolonizing-public-spaces-in-the-brussels-capital-region/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[102] Community Nursing (2024), Community Nursing in Austria, https://cn-oesterreich.at/ (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[40] Council of Europe (2024), Intercultural Cities: Good Practice Examples, https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/good-practice (accessed on 30 September 2024).

[39] Council of Europe (2019), Intercultural Cities: The Art of Mixing, https://rm.coe.int/brochure-2019-on-the-intercultural-cities-programme/1680488e90.

[22] Council of Europe (2004), A New Strategy for Social Cohesion, https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/revisedstrategy_en.pdf.

[52] Council of the European Union (2024), Council Presidency Progres Report to the Council of the European Union: Directive on Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment (Article 19), https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10817-2024-INIT/en/pdf.

[51] Council of the European Union (2023), Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age or Sexual Orientation - Progress Report, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_9043_2023_INIT (accessed on 13 August 2024).

[129] Danish Disability Council (n.d.), Campaigns, https://dch.dk/kampagner (accessed on 17 October 2024).

[142] de Búrca, G. (2006), “EU race discrimination law: A hybrid model?”, in de Búrca, G. (ed.), Law and New Governance in the EU and the US, Hart Publishing, London, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472563668.ch-004.

[137] de Witte, B. (2010), “From a “common principle of equality” to “European anti-discrimination law””, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53/12, pp. 1715-1730, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210368093.

[4] Delhommer, S. and D. Vamossy (2024), Effect of State and Local Sexual Orientation Anti-discrimination Laws on Labor Market Differentials, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3625193.

[162] De-María, B., G. Topa and M. López-González (2024), “Cultural competence interventions in European healthcare: A scoping review”, Healthcare (Basel), Vol. 12/10, p. 1040, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12101040.

[5] Donohue III, J. (2005), “The law and economics of antidiscrimination law”, NBER Working Papers, No. 11631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/5475.

[138] Ellis, E. and P. Watson (2012), “Key concepts in EU anti-discrimination law”, in EU Anti-Discrimination Law, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698462.003.0004.

[48] Equinet (2022), New Spanish Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law, https://equineteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/New-Spanish-Comprehensive-Anti-Discrimination-Law-summary.pdf.

[124] Erdtman, E., K. Rassmus-Gröhn and P. Hedvall (2021), “Universal Design as guiding, striving and unifying: A qualitative study about how Universal Design is understood, practised and realised in contemporary Sweden”, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Vol. 23/1, pp. 158–168, https://sjdr.se/articles/10.16993/sjdr.770.

[156] EU High Level Group on Combatting Hate Speech and Hate Crime (2023), Key Guiding Principles on Cooperation Between Law Enforcement Authorities and Civil Society Organisations, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/KGP%20on%20cooperation%20LEAs%20CSOs_final.pdf.

[76] European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2023), Country System Mapping Country Report: Finland, Odense, Denmark, https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/CSM%20Country%20Report%20Finland.pdf.

[53] European Commission (2025), Annexes to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Commission Work Programme 2025, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/7617998c-86e6-4a74-b33c-249e8a7938cd_en?filename=COM_2025_45_1_annexes_EN.pdf.

[132] European Commission (2024), Greece: A Guide for Dealing with Hate Crime, https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/greece-guide-dealing-hate-crime_en (accessed on 16 October 2024).

[148] European Commission (2024), The European Health Union: Acting Together for People’s Health, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/98c6e4dc-0fc3-4ec6-8ec2-bfcdcb2f018a_en?filename=policy_com-2024-206_en.pdf.

[149] European Commission (2023), A Comprehensive Approach to Mental Health, https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/cef45b6d-a871-44d5-9d62-3cecc47eda89_en?filename=com_2023_298_1_act_en.pdf.

[75] European Commission (2023), Austria: Social Inclusion Through Education and Training, https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/austria/66-social-inclusion-through-education-and-training (accessed on 18 October 2024).

[1] European Commission (2023), Discrimination in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer SP535, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2972.

[160] European Commission (2023), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council Amending Directive 2012/29/EU Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime, and Replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0424.

[155] European Commission (2022), Disability Employment Package to Improve Labour Market Outcomes for Persons with Disabilities, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1597&langId=en.

[41] European Commission (2022), Evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime, and Replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0179.

[150] European Commission (2022), Healthier Together - EU Non-Communicable Diseases Initiative, https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/d843d53e-c1c1-4664-b31e-febf618d011a_en?filename=eu-ncd-initiative_publication_en_0.pdf.

[153] European Commission (2021), Building an Economy that Works for People: An Action Plan for the Social Economy, https://base.socioeco.org/docs/building-an-economy-that-works-for-people-an-action-plan-for-the-social-economy.pdf.

[145] European Commission (2021), European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/en/.

[151] European Commission (2021), Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8dec84ce-66df-11eb-aeb5-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.

[146] European Commission (2021), Informal Commission Expert Group ‘Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training’: Terms of Reference, https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/EAC/Equality+and+Values+Documents?preview=/55903445/55903448/EAC_ToR_Values%20and%20Equality.pdf.

[154] European Commission (2020), The Reinforced Youth Guarantee, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1079&langId=en.

[161] European Commission (2020), Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0698.

[2] European Commission (2012), Discrimination in the EU in 2012, Special Eurobarometer 393, https://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_399_380_en.htm#393.

[50] European Commission (2008), Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age or Sexual Orientation {SEC(2008) 2180} {SEC(2008) 2181}, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52008PC0426.

[152] European Commission (n.d.), European Cancer Inequalities Registry, https://cancer-inequalities.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed on 11 October 2024).

[168] European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (2021), ECRI’s Opinion on the Concept of “Racialisation” - Adopted at ECRI’s 87th Plenary Meeting on 8 December 2021, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-opinion-on-the-concept-of-racialisation/1680a4dcc2.

[32] European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (2019), ECRI Report on Finland, https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-finland/1680972fa7.

[147] European Commission Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training (2023), Issues Paper: Tackling Different Forms of Discrimination in and Through Education and Training, https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/EAC/Equality+and+Values+Documents?preview=/55903445/99420051/tackling%20different%20forms%20of%20discrimination%20in%20and-NC0423702ENN.pdf.

[59] European Disability Forum (2023), The Right to Work: The Employment Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Europe, European Human Rights Report, Issue 7, https://www.edf-feph.org/content/uploads/2023/05/hr7_2023_press-accessible.pdf.

[77] European Education and Culture Agency/EACEA/Eurydice (2023), Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Schools in Europe, Eurydice Report, Luxembourg, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-schools-europe.

[44] European Network of Legal Experts In Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), Country Report: Non-Discrimination: Germany, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6192-germany-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[46] European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), Country Report: Non-Discrimination: Finland, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6129-finland-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[45] European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), Country Report: Non-Discrimination: France, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6105-france-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[42] European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), Country Report: Non-Discrimination: Lithuania, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6141-lithuania-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[37] European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), Country Report: Non-Discrimination: Poland, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6183-poland-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[38] European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination (2024), European Equality Law Network, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/ (accessed on 22 March 2024).

[166] European Parliament (2024), Proposals to Extend the List of EU Crimes to All Forms of Hate Crime and Hate Speech, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-push-for-european-democracy/file-hate-crimes-and-hate-speech (accessed on 10 October 2024).

[117] European Parliament (2021), Ageing Policies - Access to Services in Different Member States: Annex II - Country Study on France, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662940/IPOL_STU(2021)662940(ANN02)_EN.pdf.

[163] European Parliament (2010), Transgender Persons’ Rights in the EU Member States, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/425621/IPOL-LIBE_NT(2010)425621_EN.pdf.

[65] European Social Network (2014), Job Coaching and Supported Employment in Helsinki, https://www.esn-eu.org/system/files/2023-04/FI_Supported_employment_in_Helsinki_1_.pdf.

[47] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2024), Addressing Racism in Policing, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2024-addressing-racism-in-policing_en.pdf.

[28] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2024), Being Muslim in the EU: Experiences of Muslims, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2024-being-muslim-in-the-eu_en.pdf.

[29] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2024), LGBTIQ Equality at a Crossroads: Progress and Challenges: EU LGBTIQ Survey III, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2024-lgbtiq-equality_en.pdf.

[27] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2023), Being Black in the EU: Experiences of People of African Descent, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2023-being-black_in_the_eu_en.pdf.

[33] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2016), Fundamental Rights Report 2016, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2016-fundamental-rights-report-2016-2_en.pdf.

[114] Finnish Police (2024), Preventative Work at the Helsinki Police Department, https://poliisi.fi/en/preventative-work-at-the-helsinki-police-department (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[113] Finnish Police (2024), Youth Work, https://poliisi.fi/en/anchor-work-supports-the-adolescents (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[112] FLAG! (2024), LGBT+ Association of Agents of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, Firefighters, Municipal Police Officers and their Allies, https://www.flagasso.com/ (accessed on 30 January 2025).

[19] Fourie, C. (2014), “The nature and distinctiveness of social equality: An introduction”, Social Equality: On What It Means to be Equals, Fourie, C.; F Schuppert, F. and I. Wallimann-Helmer (eds.), Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199331109.001.0001.

[111] Garda National Community Engagement Bureau (2023), National Community Policing Framework, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2b073ace02ec498f9aee9ff73db49183 (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[143] Givens, T. and R. Case (2014), “From discourses to institutionalization”, in Legislating Equality, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709015.003.0005.

[131] Greece Ministry of Justice (2021), Guide For the Rights of Hate Crime Victims, https://www.astynomia.gr/file/2022/12/Guideforrights.pdf.

[133] Greece Ministry of Justice (2020), National Action Plan Against Racism and Intolerance 2020-2023, https://ministryofjustice.gr/English/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/NAP-en-l.pdf.

[164] Grozev, R. (2015), “A landmark judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU - New conceptual contributions to the legal combat against ethnic discrimination”, The Equal Rights Review, Vol. 15, pp. 168-187.

[43] Guliakaitė-Danisevičienė, M. (2024), Country Report Non-Discrimination: Transposition and Implementation at National Level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6141-lithuania-country-report-non-discrimination-2024.

[64] Gustafsson, J. (2022), Striving for an Inclusive Labour Market in Sweden, European Commission.

[126] Gustafsson, J. (2019), Sweden Fact Sheet on Social Care & Support Services Sector for Persons with Disabilities, European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities, https://easpd.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/easpd-sweden_fact_sheet.pdf.

[18] Hamilton, C. and M. Hamilton (2024), The Privileged Few, Polity.

[11] Hardy, S. and T. Schraepen (2024), “The state and effects of discrimination in the European Union”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, Working Paper No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7fd921b9-en.

[91] Healthy Diversity (n.d.), Diversity Management and Intercultural Capacity in Healthcare Services: A Collection of European Good Practices, https://healthydiversity.eu/media/HEAD-A-collection-of-european-good-practices.pdf.

[140] Howard, E. (2018), “EU anti-discrimination law”, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, Vol. 18/2-3, pp. 60-81, https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229118788454.

[136] Howard, E. (2009), “Equality: A fundamental right in the European Union?”, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, Vol. 10/1, pp. 19-38, https://doi.org/10.1177/135822910901000103.

[94] IK Studie Centre (2021), Ethnic Ressource Team (ERT), https://www.ikstudiecenter.com/general-8 (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[61] Inclusion Europe (2019), Position Paper on Inclusive Employment, https://www.inclusion-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PPInclusiveEmploymentEN.pdf.

[73] Inclusive Schools 4 Roma (2024), The Road Towards Roma Integration Goes Through Education, https://inclusiveschools4roma.eu/ (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[104] Institute for Applied Research on Ageing and Carinthia University of Applied Science (2024), Factsheet: First Insights into the Results of the Summative Evaluation of Community Nursing Austria, https://cn-oesterreich.at/system/files/inline-files/Factsheet_Evaluation_2024.pdf.

[72] Institute of Eduation Policy (2021), Inclusive Schools for Roma, https://iep.edu.gr/el/europaika-se-ekseliksi/inclusive-schools-for-roma (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[109] Ireland Policing Partnership Protection (n.d.), An Garda Síochána: National Model of Community Policing.

[83] Irish Association for Higher Education Access and Disability (2024), The WAM Programme, https://www.ahead.ie/wam (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[82] Irish Association for Higher Education Access and Disability (n.d.), Get AHEAD, https://www.ahead.ie/getahead (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[110] Irish Community Policing Implementation Team (2009), An Garda Síochána: Information Sheet: National Model of Community Policing.

[81] Irish Higher Education Authority (2024), Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Enhancement Fund, https://hea.ie/policy/gender/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-enhancement-fund/.

[78] Irish Higher Education Authority (2022), Race Equality: Anti-Racism Principles for Irish Higher Education Institutions, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2022/03/Anti-Racism-Principles-for-Irish-Higher-Education-Institutions.pdf.

[17] Irish National Disability Authority (2024), About Universal Design, https://universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design (accessed on 14 October  2024).

[157] Job Accommodation Network (2023), Costs and Benefits of Accommodation, https://askjan.org/topics/costs.cfm.

[167] Jolls, C. (2004), “Identifying the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act using state-law variation: Preliminary evidence on educational participation effects”, AEA Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 94/2, pp. 447-453.

[118] Justice and Peace Commission (2022), The Decolonisation of Belgian Public Space, https://www.justicepaix.be/en/the-decolonization-of-belgian-public-space/#_ftn12 (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[35] Kádár, A. (2024), Two Judgments on the Restrictions of the Open Distribution of LGBTIQ-Themed Books for the Youth, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6115-hungary-two-judgments-on-the-restrictions-of-the-open-distribution-of-lgbtiq-themed-books-for-the-youth.

[36] Kádár, A. (2021), Anti-LGBTIQ Legislation in Hungary, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5472-hungary-anti-lgbtqi-legislation-passed-in-hungary-131-kb.

[79] Kempny, M. and L. Michael (2021), Race Equality in the Higher Education Sector: Analysis Commissioned by the Highed Education Authority, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2021/10/HEA-Race-Equality-in-the-Higher-Education-Sector-Analysis-commissioned-by-the-Higher-Education-Authority-1.pdf.

[101] Kim, K. et al. (2016), “Effects of community-based health worker interventions to improve chronic disease management and care among vulnerable populations: A systematic review”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 106/4, pp. e3-e28.

[99] Lumi (2023), Annual Report 2023, https://www.lumi.be/sites/default/files/2023_Lumi_Jaarverslag.pdf.

[127] Luxembourg Centre of Intercultural Education (2024), Cliché - Society in Migration, https://cliche.lu/ (accessed on 16 October 2024).

[128] Luxembourg Centre of Intercultural Education (2018), Schwaarze Mann – A Black Man Among Us, https://www.ikl.lu/materiel/schwaarze-mann-un-noir-parmi-nous/ (accessed on 16 October 2024).

[115] Makhija, S. et al. (2020), Access to Justice Finland, https://globalaccesstojustice.com/files/national_reports/national-report-finland.pdf.

[103] Mayer, L. et al. (2022), Community Nursing in Austria - A Step Towards Integrated Community Care.

[84] Minnican, C. and G. O’Toole (2020), “Exploring the incidence of culturally responsive communication in Australian healthcare: The first rapid review on this concept”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 20/20, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4859-6.

[158] Moore, T. (2021), The Effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Social Security Disability Insurance, University of Michigan Retirement and Disability Research Center (MRDRC) Working Paper; MRDRC WP 2021-422, https://mrdrc.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wp422.pdf.

[108] Morales, C. (2024), One Year After the ’Rainbow Telephone 028“, What, When and How Much has it Answered?, https://prnoticias.com/2024/08/21/a-un-ano-del-telefono-arcoiris-028-que-cuando-y-cuanto-ha-atendido/ (accessed on 14 October 2024).

[141] Muir, E. (2018), “The legislative embedding of the governance of EU equality law”, in EU Equality Law, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814665.003.0005.

[69] National Agency for Education and Quality (2024), Well-being and Security for LGBT+ Students, https://www.emu.dk/fgu/demokrati-og-faellesskaber/trivsel-og-tryghed-lgbt-elever?b=t435-t771 (accessed on 18 October 2024).

[100] Nickel, S. and O. von dem Knesebeck (2020), “Effectiveness of community-based health promotion interventions in urban areas: A systematic review”, Journal of Community Health, Vol. 45/2, pp. 419-434, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00733-7.

[67] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

[56] OECD (2023), Government at a Glance 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en.

[89] OECD (2023), Integrating Care to Prevent and Manage Chronic Diseases: Best Practices in Public Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9acc1b1d-en.

[30] OECD (2023), Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, OECD Legal Instruments, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.

[74] OECD (2022), Disability, Work and Inclusion: Mainstreaming in All Policies and Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1eaa5e9c-en.

[68] OECD (2022), “Finland’s Right to Learn Programme: Achieving equity and quality in education”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65eff23e-en.

[134] OECD (2022), Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.

[57] OECD (2021), COVID-19 and Well-being: Life in the Pandemic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1e1ecb53-en.

[3] OECD (2020), All Hands In? Making Diversity Work for All, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/efb14583-en.

[9] OECD (2020), Over the Rainbow? The Road to LGBTI Inclusion, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d2fd1a8-en.

[31] OECD (2019), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.

[14] OECD (2018), Opportunities for All: A Framework for Policy Action on Inclusive Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301665-en.

[55] OECD/European Union (2022), Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en.

[8] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2023), Protecting Minority Rights: Practical Guide for Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/2022-11-28/OHCHR_ERT_Protecting_Minority%20Rights_Practical_Guide_web.pdf.

[93] Peder Lykke Centre (2022), The Ethnic Resource Team: Promotes Linguistic and Cultural Understanding, https://www.pederlykkecentret.dk/CustomerData/Files/Folders/7-det-etniske-ressourceteam-pdf/3500_folder-1-2022-uk-web-fin-1.pdf.

[92] Peder Lykke Centre (n.d.), The Ethnic Resource Team, https://www.pederlykkecentret.dk/mangfoldighed/det-etniske-ressourceteam.aspx (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[21] Pickett, K. et al. (2024), The Spirit Level at 15: The Enduring Impact of Inequality, The Equality Trust, https://doi.org/10.15124/yao-de9s-7k93.

[26] Pope, D., J. Price and J. Wolfers (2018), “Awareness reduces racial bias”, Management Science, Vol. 64/11, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2901.

[87] Prescriptec (2021), Healthy Regions: Bridging the Gaps, for Better Health in the Roma Communities in Slovakia, https://prescriptec.org/healthy-regions-bridging-gaps-for-better-health-in-roma-communities/ (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[16] Productivity Commission (2021), Innovations in Care for Chronic Health Condititions, Productivity Reform Case Study, https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/chronic-care-innovations/chronic-care-innovations.pdf.

[15] Productivity Commission (2014), Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/access-justice/report/access-justice-volume1.pdf.

[98] RainbowHouse Brussels (n.d.), Who We Are?, http://rainbowhouse.be/en/about-us/ (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[20] Ringelheim, J. and S. Ganty (2023), “Anti-discrimination law and economic inequalities”, Research Handbook on European Anti-Discrimination Law.

[71] Rus, C. (2006), The Situation of Roma School Mediators and Assistants in Europe, Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/roma/Source/Mediators_Analyse_EN.pdf.

[70] Rutigliano, A. (2020), “Inclusion of Roma students in Europe:  A literature review and examples of policy initiatives”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 228, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8ce7d6eb-en.

[85] Savas, S. et al. (2024), “Migrant-sensitive healthcare in Europe: Advancing health equity through accessibility, acceptability, quality and trust”, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, Vol. 41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100805.

[49] Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2020), Resolution No. XIV-72 on the Programme of the Eighteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/lit202212.pdf.

[34] Solano, G. and T. Huddleston (2020), Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) 2020, https://www.mipex.eu/anti-discrimination.

[106] Spain Ministry of Equality (2020), Commentary by the Government of Spain on the Grevio’s Final Report on Legislative and Other Measures to Implement Provisions of the Istanbul Convention, https://rm.coe.int/final-comments-of-the-spanish-government/1680a077b8.

[107] Spain Ministry of Equality (n.d.), Directorate General for Real and Effective Equality of LGBTI+ People, https://www.igualdad.gob.es/ministerio/dglgtbi/ (accessed on 12 July 2024).

[86] Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities (2024), Organisational Grants, https://www.myndighetensst.se/bidrag/bidrag-for-statsbidragsberattigade-trossamfund/verksamhetsbidrag (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[125] Swedish Authority for Participation (2024), The Work Environment Regulations, https://www.mfd.se/samhallsomraden/arbete-och-sysselsattning/arbetsmiljoregelverket/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[122] Swedish Authority for Participation (2023), The Disability Policy, https://www.mfd.se/utgangspunkter/funktionshinderspolitiken/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[123] Swedish Authority for Participation (2022), Goals and Orientations, https://www.mfd.se/utgangspunkter/funktionshinderspolitiken/mal-och-inriktning/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[60] Swedish Public Employment Service (n.d.), Employment with Support, https://arbetsformedlingen.se/for-arbetssokande/extra-stod/stod-a-o/kategorier/anstallning-med-stod (accessed on 21 October 2024).

[62] Swedish Public Employment Service (n.d.), Special Support Person for Introduction and Follow-up Support – SIUS, https://arbetsformedlingen.se/for-arbetssokande/extra-stod/stod-a-o/sarskild-stodperson-for-introduktions--och-uppfoljningsstod---sius (accessed on 21 October 2024).

[63] Swedish Social Insurance Agency (2017), “Effektutvärdering av insatser för unga med aktivitetsersättning (Effect evaluation of efforts for young people with activity compensation)”, Social Insurance Report, Vol. 5, https://www.forsakringskassan.se/download/18.7cd2923018425d8c4fc12b/1667202722818/effektutvardering-av-insatser-for-unga-med-aktivitetsersattning-socialforsakringsrapport-2017-5.pdf.

[119] The Working Group on the Decolonisation of the Public Space in Brussels (2022), Decolonising Public Spaces in the Brussels-Capital Region: A Framework for Reflection and Recommendations, https://cloud.urban.brussels/s/xbpfRfn82trTGmE.

[165] UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf.

[80] University of Galway (2023), Race Equality Framework and Action Plan 2023-2027, https://www.universityofgalway.ie/media/equality/raceequality/files/University-of-Galway-Race-Equality-Framework-and-Action-Plan-2023---2027-online.pdf.

[170] University of Washington (2022), What is Universal Design?, https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-universal-design-0 (accessed on 20 October 2024).

[121] urban.brussels (2023), Towards the Decolonisation of Public Spaces in the Brussels-Capital Region: Action Plan, https://cloud.urban.brussels/s/m9P64gtkrx4QKdS.

[6] US Commission on Civil Rights (2000), Sharing the Dream: Is the ADA Accommodating All?, https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/ada/main.htm.

[10] Valfort, M. (2018), Do Anti-discrimination Policies Work? A Mix of Policies Could be the Solution to Reducing Discrimination in the Labor Market, IZA World of Labor 2018:450, https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.450.

[144] Von Der Leyen, U. (n.d.), A Union that Strives for More: My Agenda for Europe, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-04/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2024).

[12] Weber, M. (1998), “Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act: A national employment policy for people with disabilities”, Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 46, pp. 123-174.

[95] World Health Organization (2016), Community-Based Health Services: A Vital Part of Universal Health Coverage, https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/277187/UHC-discussion-paper-2016.pdf?sequence=1.

[66] Zero Project (2021), Municipality-funded Work Coaches for People with Disabilities, https://zeroproject.org/view/project/def9fe37-3612-eb11-a813-000d3ab9b226 (accessed on 21 October 2024).

Annex 4.A. Public support for anti-discrimination measures and perceptions of effectiveness

This annex presents evidence on people’s views on the desirability of anti-discrimination initiatives from the Opportunities Module of the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey. In the OECD EU countries surveyed, more than half of respondents support additional policies to fight discrimination based on disability (and social class), and 42% want more efforts directed at fighting ethnic and racial discrimination. In contrast, only 28% support further efforts against religious discrimination and 38% desire more initiatives to fight LGBT discrimination. Not only is there less support for further policy action to fight religious and LGBT discrimination, but 15% of respondents believe that efforts have gone too far (compared to only 4% for disability discrimination).

The average levels of support for policies to fight discrimination conceal stark differences within the population. As shown in Panel A of Annex Figure 4.A.1, support is greatest among people who state that they have experienced discrimination, particularly if they are women. Younger people who report they have experienced discrimination tend to be more supportive of policy action than older people, except when it comes to efforts to fight age- and disability‑discrimination, which are more likely to be of concern to older people (Annex Figure 4.A.1, Panel B).

Levels of anti-discrimination policy support are similar to the patterns of social acceptance of groups at risk of discrimination, as Europeans on average are more accepting of persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities (excluding Roma people), in comparison to LGBTI people and religious minorities (Chapter 3, Hardy and Schraepen (2024[11]). They also reflect views on the levels of protection and the effectiveness of countries’ policies reviewed in the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. In general, there is less support for additional efforts to fight discrimination in countries where people believe efforts are effective (Annex Figure 4.A.2, Panel A), and where there are comprehensive laws and policies (Annex Figure 4.A.2, Panel B). For example, in Finland and Denmark, people believe their governments’ efforts to fight discrimination are effective and more does not need to be done. There are, however, outliers like Ireland, where there are wide-ranging efforts to fight discrimination and public perceptions that these efforts are effective, but people think more could been done.

Annex Figure 4.A.1. Public support is greatest for doing more to fight discrimination based on disability, social class, sex and ethnicity or skin colour

Share of respondents who believe efforts have not gone far enough to fight discrimination on various grounds, by self‑reported experience of discrimination, sex and age OECD EU 17 average, 2022

Note: The dots represent the share of each group that believes more needs to be done to fight discrimination and the whiskers are the 95% confidence intervals. Survey respondents were asked if they had ever felt discriminated against or harassed, as well as whether they believe that “efforts have gone too far”, “efforts are about right”, “efforts have not gone far enough”, or “can’t choose” to fight discrimination based on ethnicity and skin colour, language, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion or belief, migrant status, age, social class, place of residence, marital or family status and political opinion. In Panel B, young refers to respondents aged under 35 and older respondents are those aged 55 and over. EU countries covered in the survey are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Slovenia.

Source: OECD calculations based on the Opportunities Module of the OECD (2022[134]) Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.

Statlink

Annex Figure 4.A.2. Countries with comprehensive anti-discrimination protections are more likely to view their policies as effective and sufficient

Correlations between public preferences for more anti-discrimination action, countries’ current anti-discrimination settings and public views on the effectiveness of anti-discrimination actions

Note: Panel A shows the correlation between OECD EU countries’ demands for additional policy efforts to fight discrimination (from the Opportunities Module of the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey) and OECD EU countries’ views on the effectiveness of anti‑discrimination initiatives in their country (from the 2023 Discrimination in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer SP535). The Opportunities Module of the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey asked respondents if they believe “efforts have gone too far”, “efforts are about right”, “efforts have not gone far enough”, or “can’t choose” to fight discrimination based on ethnicity and skin colour, language, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion or belief, migrant status, age, social class, place of residence, marital or family status and political opinion. The share of responses for “efforts have not gone far enough” were aggregated across grounds of discrimination for each country. The 2023 2023 Discrimination in the European Union Eurobarometer asked respondents, on a scale of 1 to 10, if they believe efforts made in their country to fight all forms of discrimination are effective (where 1 means they believe efforts are ‘not at all effective’ and 10 means they believe efforts are “very effective”). Scores above 5 are interpreted as denoting beliefs that policies are at least moderately effective. The shares of respondents in each country who believe that anti-discrimination policies are effective are presented. In Panel B, the correlation between OECD EU countries’ views on the effectiveness of anti‑discrimination initiatives (from the 2023 Discrimination in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer SP535) and the law, policy and mainstreaming index is presented. The method for constructing the law index and the policy index is described in Box 4.13 and methodological details for the mainstreaming index are outlined in Chapter 5. These three indices were averaged to create an aggregate anti-discrimination law, policy and mainstreaming index. The interpretation of the anti-discrimination law, policy and mainstreaming index is as follows: a score of 1 means that the country has comprehensive anti-discrimination laws (prohibiting a broad range of forms of discrimination across key areas of life, permitting positive actions and requiring reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities), as well as a suite of policies and programmes that are tailored to the needs of at-risk groups in employment, education and training, health, justice, public accessibility and awareness campaigns. Finally, a score of 1 also requires a country to have robust equality and inclusion mainstreaming practices in relation to policy coordination mechanisms, stakeholder engagement processes, staff training, policy and programme evaluation and data collections. For the line of best fit in Panel B, Belgium is excluded, as it is not directly comparable with the other OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. Belgium’s response to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire comprised national and regional policies and mainstreaming efforts, which differs from the national approach of all other questionnaire respondents, which comprise Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Source: OECD analysis based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire, the Opportunities Module of the OECD (2022[134]) Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html and on the European Commission (2023[1]), Discrimination in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer SP535, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2972.

Statlink

Most people who report experiencing discrimination support actions to fight discrimination, particularly if they are women (Annex Figure 4.A.3). Public support is greatest for initiatives that do not put much of an imposition on the private sector, such as the provision of more information. The most preferred option is to increase information in employment spheres – in relation to increasing pay transparency and corporate guidelines to fight discrimination. These types of initiatives are also broadly supported by people who do not self-report experiencing discrimination.

People who self-report discrimination are more likely than the rest of the population to favour proactive initiatives to ensure people’s equal rights and opportunities, such as legislative change, dedicated and community-based health, education, justice and housing services for people at risk of discrimination, introducing diversity training and creating information and awareness campaigns (Annex Figure 4.A.3). However, there is relatively less support for the types of initiatives that involve mandating representation of at-risk groups, even among people who report having experienced discrimination. Indeed, creating jobs and positions for at-risk groups in politics and education has the least amount of support, and is the only policy option that is not supported by the majority of the population (Annex Figure 4.A.3).

Annex Figure 4.A.3. On average, public support is stronger for information-based initiatives than for efforts that are more prescriptive, such as quotas

Share of respondents that support measures to fight discrimination, by self-reported experience of discrimination and sex, OECD EU 17 average, 2022

Note: The dots represent the share of each group that support the specified policy actions and the whiskers are the 95% confidence intervals. Survey respondents were asked if they had ever felt discriminated against or harassed, as well as to what extent they support or oppose the following measures to foster diversity and fight discrimination: “change legislation to enable equal participation in society and the economy”, “introduce diversity training at work and in education, healthcare, justice and housing services”, “invest in dedicated health, education, justice and housing services that make discriminated groups comfortable and safe”, “monitor the representation of groups at risk of discrimination at work, in education or politics”, “create jobs, political positions, and university places for discriminated groups”, “increase pay transparency to reduce wage gaps”, “create guidelines for the corporate world to fight discrimination including in recruitment”, “promote a fair representation of minorities in media, the arts and culture”, and “invest in information campaigns to raise awareness of discrimination and change community attitudes”. Respondents could select from “totally oppose”, “somewhat oppose”, “neutral”, “somewhat support”, “totally support”, and “can’t choose”. Young refers to survey respondents aged under 35 and older is anyone aged over 55. EU countries covered in the survey are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Slovenia.

Source: OECD calculations based on the Opportunities Module of the OECD (2022[134]) Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.

Statlink

Annex 4.B. Key EU legal and policy developments

The EU’s anti-discrimination legislative and policy framework has expanded over the past 60 years. When protections against nationality discrimination and equal pay for women were introduced in 1957, as part of the EEC Treaty, anti-discrimination protections were geared towards realising a common market rather than guaranteeing fundamental rights (Bell, 2021[135]). There was, however, a pivot towards fundamental rights in the subsequent 20 years, with the development of international legal instruments, including the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1967, and through decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which expanded the list of prohibited forms of sex-based discrimination (Howard, 2009[136]; de Witte, 2010[137]). By the 1980s, the Court of Justice of the European Union had articulated key legal concepts including indirect sex‑based discrimination, victimisation, the principle of causation (i.e. no need for intention or motivation required to claim redress) and shifting the burden of proof from complainant to alleged perpetrator (Ellis and Watson, 2012[138]).

Anti-discrimination protections continued to expand after the 1970s, firstly in response to concerns about racial discrimination in the context of the politicisation of migration (Bell, 2002[139]). In 1984, the European Parliament, European Commission, and Council adopted the Joint Declaration Against Racism and Xenophobia, and in 1997, the Amsterdam Treaty extended anti‑discrimination protections to people based on their racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation – which was followed by the introduction in the 2000s of the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC), the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC), the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Pillar of Social Rights. Meanwhile, rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union established discrimination by association and assumption (or perception), and broadly interpreted reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities (Howard, 2018[140]).

Legal developments in the 1990s and 2000s marked a turning point in the significance of equality as a policy objective in its own right. Equality was treated as a distinct concern, independent of policies that were traditionally associated with anti-discrimination considerations such as immigration or the internal market (Muir, 2018[141]; de Búrca, 2006[142]; Givens and Case, 2014[143]). Civil society organisations, equality networks and fundamental rights bodies had greater scope to influence policies and laws, notably in the final wording of the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive (Givens and Case, 2014[143]). The importance of equality and inclusion as policy objective was articulated in the European Pillar of Social Rights in 2017, the Union of Equality in 2019 (Von Der Leyen, n.d.[144]), and the associated equality strategies: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan 2020-2025, the EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion, and Participation 2020-2030; the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, and the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030. These strategies flag potential legislative changes, including disability accessibility standards for products and services, a European Disability Card, and have prompted developments in the policy areas of employment and economic opportunity, education, health and justice and safety, for example:

• the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan (2021[145]) highlights the importance of EU funds for supporting national, regional, civil society efforts to combat stereotypes and discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment, training, education, social protection, housing and health.

• the Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training, formed in 2021 as part of the European Education Area, is investigating discrimination in education and training systems, and structural reforms to promote equality for students from racialised communities, students with disability and LGBTI students (European Commission, 2021[146]; European Commission Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training, 2023[147]).

• the European Health Union, which was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but has evolved to promote health equity and access as a fundamental right (European Commission, 2024[148]). The European Health Union is underpinned by the European Comprehensive Approach to Mental Health (2023[149]), Healthier Together – the EU Non-Communicable Diseases Initiative (2022[150]) and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (2021[151]), and the associated European Cancer Inequalities Register, which recognise, and seek to reduce, the inequalities in healthcare access and health outcomes for people based on their sex, age, disability status, ethnicity and material living standards. The European Cancer Inequalities Register now publishes data on prevention and care by age, sex, disability, income, education, urbanisation and country (European Commission, n.d.[152]).

• the EU’s Social Economy Action Plan (2021[153]), which presents options to increase economic and employment opportunities for older and younger people, people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities. Moreover, the EU has a range of initiatives to enhance employment, social and education opportunities for young people and persons with disabilities, including the reinforced Youth Guarantee (2020[154]) and the Disability Employment Package (2022[155]).

• the EU High Level Group on Combatting Hate Speech and Hate Crime (2023[156]) has produced guidance to law enforcement agencies and other national authorities to assist in strengthening cooperation and partnerships with civil society organisations to prevent, and respond to, hate crimes. This guidance was prepared in addition to EU efforts to enact laws to protect victims’ rights.

Most recently, legislative changes were made in May 2024 to enhance the effectiveness of national equality bodies to support victims and prevent discrimination. Equality bodies will have to: be independent and impartial; guarantee access to all and ensure there are no barriers for victims making discrimination complaints; investigate complaints, provide information to victims and act on the behalf of victims in court proceedings; raise awareness; be sufficiently resourced to undertake their activities; collect and publish equality data to assess the state of discrimination; be consulted on legislative and policy changes; and report publicly on their functioning and progress (Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499). EU Members have until June 2026 to transpose this directive into national law.

Notes

← 1.  For example, via the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Pillar of Social Rights.

← 2.  In addition, the EU has made great strides to combat sex-based discrimination and inequalities, with the help of the EU Gender Equality Directive (2006/54/EC) and gender equality mainstreaming. These initiatives, however, are outside the scope of this study, which focuses on discrimination based on ethnicity and race, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion and age, as well as the intersections of these forms of discrimination with sex-based discrimination.

← 3.  A note on terminology: in this chapter, inclusive language is used as much as possible when referring to LGBTI people, persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities. The term “racialised communities” is based on the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance’s (2021[168]) definition, in which racialisation is ‘the process of ascribing characteristics and attributes that are presented as innate to a group of concern to it and of constructing false social hierarchies in racial terms and associated exclusion and hostility. Regardless of where one is from and of personal circumstances, once identified or perceived as a member of a group, one is deemed as embodying characteristics based on, for instance, skin colour, ethnic or national origin inherent to all members of that group”. The terms “at-risk groups” and “minority groups” are used interchangeably. However, in some cases, alternative language is used to align with research and policy documents, and in order to present findings accurately. For example, the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire only asked about anti-discrimination laws based on a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity, and as such the term LGBT is used when referring to countries’ legal responses.

← 4.  The effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the employment of persons with disabilities is not clear cut. Some researchers suggest that the legislation may have created perceptions of higher costs among employers, given the requirement to provide accommodations for persons with disabilities, as well as hiring, firing and pay regulations (Acemoglu and Angrist, 2001[7]). However, others point to alternative explanations for the decrease in employment of persons with disabilities, including the recession in the early 1990s (Weber, 1998[12]), and the expansion of Social Security Disability Insurance eligibility and benefits during the 1990s (Autour and Duggan, 2003[171]; Moore, 2021[158]). Further, some research points to the laws encouraging persons with disabilities to increase their educational participation (Jolls, 2004[167]), while recent survey evidence reveals that the costs to employers of creating reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are low and decreasing (Job Accommodation Network, 2023[157]).

← 5.  The OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire were Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

← 6.  The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire asked countries about the policies and legal protections based on gender identity. While EU anti-discrimination laws do not expressly protect gender identity, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the EU Gender Equality Directive (2006/54/EC) covers gender reassignment (in which a person’s gender is legally recognised) (European Commission, 2020[161]). In addition, the Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 extends anti‑discrimination protections to gender identity (which refers to an individual’s deeply felt experience of gender) (European Parliament, 2010[163]) and European Human Rights Court has established case law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and “have contributed to the advancement of the protection of the rights of transgender persons”. In light of these legal developments, many OECD EU countries treat gender identity discrimination as a form of sex/gender discrimination, but the nature of protection is similar to that afforded to sexual orientation. The exception is Estonia, where gender identity protections apply outside of employment to education and access to goods and services (whereas sexual orientation is only protected in employment-related areas). More information on each country’s treatment of gender identity discrimination is provided in the note to Figure 4.3.

← 7.  Culturally responsive services are respectful of everyone’s backgrounds, beliefs, values, customs, knowledge, lifestyles and social behaviours. Being respectful helps to provide care and support that is appropriate for an individual. It requires service deliverers to understand different cultures and risks people face, to be aware of their own cultural biases, and to respond to individuals’ circumstances, feelings and attitudes. Examples of culturally responsive services include providing language support, meeting food preferences and accommodating religions and spirituality at meaningful points (such as hospice care) (Agency for Clinical Innovation, 2024[169]).

← 8.  Universal Design aims to make infrastructure, goods and services accessible to people of all ages, sizes and abilities, thereby making products and services more usable to everyone, not just persons with disability. The design should accommodate individual preferences and abilities; communicate necessary information effectively; and minimise the need to make adaptations, although products should be compatible with assistive technology and other necessary adaptations (University of Washington, 2022[170]).

← 9.  However, as a sign that people can access justice, less than 10% of Black and Muslim respondents said they did not report a discriminatory incident because they did not understand their rights or legal recourses, or they were afraid of being treated poorly or facing language barriers (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024[28]; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023[27]).

← 10.  The exception is Belgium, which included examples of policies, programmes and mainstreaming practices from the regions of Wallonia, Flanders and the Brussels-Capital Region when completing the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. Belgium’s regional policies and practices are incorporated into the analysis of gaps in Belgium’s initiatives, as well as in identifying good practices in Europe. However, Belgium is not directly comparable to other OECD EU countries, which only provided national-level examples.

← 11.  The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the EU Gender Equality Directive (2006/54/EC) applies to gender reassignment (where a person’s gender is legally recognised). All OECD EU countries have similar protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, except in Estonia, where protections apply in education, and the access and provision of goods and services for gender identity, but not for sexual orientation (see Figure 4.3 note).

← 12.  Positive actions are not explicitly permitted in Latvia or Slovenia, in France outside the ground of disability, in the Netherlands outside of ethnic or racial origin, and disability, or in the Slovak Republic outside of ethnic or racial origin, age and disability.

← 13.  However, there are open infringement cases against three Member States for incorrect or incomplete transposition.

← 14.  In addition, the EU Digital Services Act (Regulation EU 2022/2065) sets requirements on online service providers to remove content that is discriminatory hate speech or a hate crime in all EU countries. This Act applies automatically and does not have to be transcribed into national legislation.

← 15.  The Council is considering a proposal to extend hate crime and hate speech protections to people based on their disability status, sexual orientation, gender and age (European Parliament, 2024[166]).

← 16.  During the 2024-2028 institutional mandate, the Parliament, the European Commission and the Council are negotiating amendments to the Victims’ Rights Directive. The proposed amendments include improving victims’ access to information, better aligning protection measures with the needs of vulnerable victims (such as children and persons with disabilities), increased access to specialist support for vulnerable victims, more effective participation in criminal proceedings for victims, and facilitated access to compensation from the offender (European Commission, 2023[160]).

← 17.  If passed, the Irish Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 would establish bias‑motivated crimes.

← 18.  The difference between bias-motivated crimes and criminal offences with a discriminatory aspect boils down to the intention to commit the crime. People who commit bias-motivated crimes do so because of their hatred or prejudice towards a person or group, whereas criminal offences with a discriminatory aspect target a victim because they can be exploited on the basis of their protected characteristics. Most hate crime legislation is based on the bias-motivation model (Chalmers and Leverick, 2017[159]).

← 19.  The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that indirect discrimination in the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) covers discrimination by association for people who experience discrimination or harassment in the field of employment because they are associated with someone who has a disability (S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, C-303/06, 17 July 2008). Similarly, in CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (C-83/14, 16 July 2015) the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the scope of the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) extends to a person’s presumed origin or by their association, as the plaintiff was discriminated against because of her association with the Roma community even though she did not possess the protected characteristic (Grozev, 2015[164]).

← 20.  In Timishev (ECtHR 2005, nos 55762/00 and 55974,00), the European Court of Human Rights found that restricting the movement of people based on their actual or perceived ethnicity constituted unequal treatment on account of ethnicity.

← 21.  Denmark does not cover multiple discrimination in their national legislation, but has relevant civil court cases and equality body decisions.

← 22.  While multiple discrimination is not explicitly prohibited in legislation or considered in case law, there is an implicit reference to multiple discrimination as a genal aggravating circumstance in Luxembourgish Criminal Code.

← 23.  Austria’s Federal Disability Equality Act (2005), for example, includes the objectives to ensure the equal participation of persons with disabilities in society and enable them to live self-determined lives. In pursuit of these aims, the law articulates obligations on the federal government to enact appropriate and specifically necessary measures to enable people with disabilities to access its services, with a particular emphasis on making public service buildings accessible to persons with disabilities.

← 24.  Key legislative instruments include the European Accessibility Act Directive (EU) 2019/882, regulations on the Rights of Passengers with Reduced Mobility, Web Accessibility Directive (EU) 2016/2102, and the EU-wide accessibility standards.

← 25.  Some Member States expressed concerns about the original proposal and requested clarifications on the perceived lack of legal certainty, the division of competences and compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, and the financial impact of the proposal. The proposal was redrafted to clarify the substance and division of competence of the legal obligations, and by largely limiting the potential financial impact (Council of the European Union, 2024[52]).

← 26.  Core health services include consultations with doctors, tests and examinations, and hospital care.

← 27.  School programmes are a set of educational activities designed to achieve learning objectives or accomplish educational tasks (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012[165]).

← 28.  For example, religious people who believe in divine influence tend to prefer less information about their condition than non-believers, while people from some Asian cultures may demonstrate denial and stolidity about illness and it can be perceived as inappropriate for a clinician to give a diagnosis to a patient with Egyptian descent instead of their family (De-María, Topa and López-González, 2024[162]).