Combatting Discrimination in the European Union

Report

10 July 2025

5. Mainstreaming equality and non-discrimination throughout policymaking processes

Copy link to 5. Mainstreaming equality and non-discrimination throughout policymaking processes

Abstract

Mainstreaming has been at the heart of the European Union’s efforts to foster equality and combat discrimination for the past 30 years. Mainstreaming creates an environment in which equality and non-discrimination are considered throughout policymaking processes, instead of being afterthoughts. EU policy guidance and funding arrangements are powerful enablers of national mainstreaming efforts. National mainstreaming approaches are well developed in many OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire (at least with respect to the grounds of disability, ethnicity and race and age). However, some countries have adopted broader, more comprehensive approaches, with cross-cutting strategies that address all grounds of discrimination, supported by government-wide coordination, stakeholder collaboration, robust equality data, and systems for evaluation and knowledge sharing. These examples could be instructive for deepening mainstreaming across the EU.

As discussed in the previous chapter, policies tailored to the specific needs of groups at risk of discrimination are important for addressing barriers in accessing employment, education and training, health and justice. Most OECD EU countries have policies that strive to enhance the equality of opportunity for groups at risk of discrimination including people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people,1 religious minorities, and people of different ages – although policy efforts have focused predominantly on persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities (Chapter 4). While these policies and programmes promote inclusion and equality, gaps can remain if policymakers, not directly working on policies for at-risk groups, fail to consider the broader effects of their interventions on those at risk of discrimination.

Mainstreaming complements proactive policy initiatives to promote inclusion and equality by embedding non-discrimination and equality perspectives into every phase of the policy cycle. The aim of mainstreaming is to ensure that policymakers systematically consider the effects of policy decisions on groups at risk of discrimination – even where at-risk groups are not the primary policy focus, for example energy pricing aimed at reducing emissions might disproportionately affect older people who consume more heating and cooling. A mainstreaming approach would account for this and seek ways to mitigate such effects (OECD, 2021[1]). By understanding how policies differentially impact groups at risk of discrimination, mainstreaming helps to promote their full participation in society and the realisation of their equal rights and opportunities.

The EU emphasises a “twin track” approach to equality – which comprises proactive policies to address systemic barriers and approaches to mainstream equality throughout policymaking processes. Indeed, the EU has a longstanding commitment to mainstreaming equality and non-discrimination, established with respect to gender equality in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and extended to racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation under the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. Since then, the EU has developed practices and processes to mainstream equality, for instance as part of the Union of Equality. This includes action plans and strategies to fight discrimination, investment in the collection of equality data on the experiences of groups at risk of discrimination, funding equality initiatives and the creation of fora to share best practices across EU Members (recent EU mainstreaming initiatives are presented in Annex 5.A).

This chapter analyses OECD EU countries’ mainstreaming approaches based on an analysis of responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. The questionnaire gathered information on the mechanisms countries use to mainstream equality and non-discrimination for people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTI people, religious minorities, and people across different age groups (the questionnaire is described in more detail in Chapter 4). Countries were asked to provide information on mainstreaming initiatives they have developed or are planning, as of April 2024. Twenty-one OECD EU countries responded to the questionnaire: Austria, Belgium,2 Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

The design of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire was informed by an analysis of guidance materials from the OECD and European Commission, which have developed various approaches, frameworks and toolkits to mainstream equality. Mainstreaming approaches share many similarities, including an acknowledgement of the importance of a whole‑of-government approach, systematic stakeholder engagement, robust monitoring, accountability and evaluation processes, and training and resources to develop and maintain policymakers’ capability.

This chapter synthesises these mainstreaming approaches to create a guidance tool for equality mainstreaming and explain how it informed the development of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire (Section 5.1). It also assesses the state of OECD EU countries’ mainstreaming efforts and identifies good practices based on an analysis of the results of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire (Section 5.2). As in Chapter 4, responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire reveal that efforts to mainstream equality and non-discrimination tend to focus on particular groups – specifically persons with disabilities, people from racialised groups and based on age – while not yet fully addressing the needs of all at-risk groups.

The results also highlight the important role the EU plays in facilitating mainstreaming, as efforts to promote ethnicity and race and disability equality have longer histories in the EU than those for LGBTI people and religious minorities. The EU has mechanisms to encourage mainstreaming for all at-risk groups, including through the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). Nevertheless, some countries, including Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden, are pursuing mainstreaming more holistically across groups; and there are good practices in many OECD EU countries that could be extended to all at-risk groups.

5.1. Approaches for mainstreaming equality for groups at risk of discrimination

Copy link to 5.1. Approaches for mainstreaming equality for groups at risk of discrimination

This section examines frameworks and toolkits developed by the European Commission and the OECD to support countries’ equality mainstreaming efforts. Understanding the key elements of equality mainstreaming highlighted in these frameworks and toolkits has shaped the analysis of OECD EU countries’ equality mainstreaming, which is presented in Section 5.2. These existing frameworks guided the development of the equality mainstreaming section of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire (Box 5.1), and have informed the identification of good practices in OECD EU countries. The good practices discussed in Section 5.2 exhibit features that are in line with equality mainstreaming frameworks and toolkits, though some are also backed by programme evaluations.

Equality mainstreaming frameworks and toolkits developed by the European Commission and the OECD have different goals, such as gender equality, achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or pursuing equality in transport policy. Regardless of whether mainstreaming is focused on a single ground (like gender) or on achieving a broader aim that affects groups experiencing discrimination (like transport equality), equality mainstreaming frameworks and toolkits share many similarities, as shown in Figure 5.1. They all suggest mechanisms for deepening policymakers’ understanding of the issues facing at‑risk groups – for instance through training, the collection of equality data and structured stakeholder engagement processes – and for cementing policy coherence through strong leadership, organisational culture, and coordination across policymaking bodies (how these mechanisms are operationalised in OECD EU countries is discussed in Section 5.2).

Figure 5.1. Mainstreaming frameworks have many similar components
Copy link to Figure 5.1. Mainstreaming frameworks have many similar components

While equality mainstreaming frameworks and toolkits share common principles and mechanisms, they often place emphasis on different elements based on their institutional contexts. For example, in the EU, mainstreaming frameworks recognise that Member States have different mainstreaming objectives. The European Commission’s (2011[5]) Compendium of Practice on Non-Discrimination/Equality Mainstreaming provides a menu of options for EU Members to consider in terms of setting national objectives for equality mainstreaming, such as complying with non-discrimination legislation, or eliminating barriers to groups facing inequalities, or accounting for the diversity of society, or fostering good relations between at-risk groups and the wider community (Chapter 4). Nevertheless, regardless of national mainstreaming aims, the compendium highlights strategic planning and organisational culture for embedding equality. This can be achieved through setting priorities, responsibilities, key policy actions, monitoring progress, stakeholder engagement, staff training and having processes for considering at-risk groups in policy decisions (for example through equality impact assessments, equality data and stakeholder participation).

This approach is evident in more recent equality mainstreaming efforts, as demonstrated in the EU Anti‑Racism Plan (2020-2025), the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (2020-2025), the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2021-2030), and the EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion and Participation for 2020-2030. These strategies and plans do not mandate how EU Member States should implement equality mainstreaming, although the European Commission has created toolkits to provide practical guidance. For instance, the European Commission’s (2024[4]) Handbook for Equality Mainstreaming in Transport Policy includes procedures, materials and checklists to guide EU Member States’ assessments of the effects of transport policy changes on each group at risk of discrimination, as well as setting and monitoring goals for achieving equality, developing institutional capacity and awareness, and ensuring that public communications represent all parts of society and are accessible (all informed by disaggregated equality data and stakeholder consultation).

Similarly, the OECD has developed mainstreaming toolkits for gender equality and for promoting policy coherence for sustainable development. These are cross-cutting policy issues, spanning economic, social and environmental areas; where fragmented government actions risk cancelling out policy effects and generating costs to society (OECD, 2023[6]). As such, the OECD toolkits and frameworks underline the need for whole‑of-government approaches to mainstream equality. According to previous OECD mainstreaming research, whole-of-government approaches support various government agencies to work towards the same goal by having a clear vision, which is backed by national strategies, strong political leadership, policy coordination processes (with clear roles and responsibilities) and engagement processes that enable stakeholders to collaborate with policymakers. These efforts can be coupled with ways to measure progress and ensure accountability to the public; along with investments in institutional capability to embed equality into policymaking such as by rolling out training and disseminating knowledge of what works (OECD, 2023[6]; 2023[3]).

For the purposes of analysing the equality mainstreaming approaches in OECD EU countries and developing the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire, this chapter synthesises elements of key OECD and EU mainstreaming frameworks and toolkits (Figure 5.2). In distilling existing frameworks and toolkits, four principles and aims of mainstreaming become apparent:

Whole-of-government approaches to develop a coherent mainstreaming strategy and process;
Stakeholder engagement and participation in policymaking processes to make policymaking transparent and open, while building support for equality policies;
Accountability, monitoring and evaluation to strengthen the evidence base and measure progress;
Institutional capability, including resources and capacities, to integrate equality perspectives into all policy processes and diffuse knowledge.

While these principles are distinct, they are inter-related, as making progress on one front is supported by action in many other areas. For example, stakeholder engagement supports accountability, monitoring and evaluation, as it ventilates relevant information that may not otherwise emerge during policy reviews, and increases policymakers’ understanding of issues affecting at-risk groups, which can help to build institutional capability.

Successful implementation of mainstreaming also requires consideration of operational matters. Existing toolkits and frameworks highlight questions that policymakers can reflect on in order to apply mainstreaming approaches – for example in relation to engaging with at-risk groups, collecting and publishing sensitive data, as well as clear roles and responsibilities for all relevant government agencies (Figure 5.2). In addition, frameworks and toolkits often describe a raft of tools countries can use to embed equality, such as national plans and strategies, publishing the results of innovative initiatives to disseminate good practices and systematic opportunities for at-risk groups to discuss their experiences directly with policymakers. Figure 5.2 includes examples of questions and tools that are commonly included in equality frameworks and toolkits, which can guide equality mainstreaming efforts, and have helped to motivate the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire and consideration of good practices presented in the following section. These questions and tools also help to identify what makes good practices work, as shown in Figure 5.7, Figure 5.9, Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.15.

Figure 5.2. Guidance tool for mainstreaming equality and non-discrimination
Copy link to Figure 5.2. Guidance tool for mainstreaming equality and non-discrimination

Guidance tool based on a synthesis of existing mainstreaming frameworks

Box 5.1. An equality mainstreaming index using the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire

Copy link to Box 5.1. An equality mainstreaming index using the <em>OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire</em>

The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire was developed to collect information on laws and policies to promote inclusion and fight discrimination based on ethnicity or race, disability status, sexual orientation or gender identity, religion and age. Questions were included on national government efforts to embed non-discrimination and equality throughout policy processes (i.e. mainstreaming) – such as via cross‑departmental and cross-governmental coordination, national equality strategies and plans, inclusive stakeholder engagement processes, equality data collections and policy evaluations, funding arrangements for equality initiatives and training for public officials. (See Chapter 4 for more information on the legal and tailored policy initiatives collected as part of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire and Chapter 3 for more information on how indices were constructed based on these legal, policy and mainstreaming efforts.)

Twenty-one OECD EU countries responded to the questionnaire and provided examples of existing, or planned, mainstreaming initiatives (current as of April 2024). The OECD supplemented the responses by undertaking desktop research to ensure consistency across countries. The main source of inconsistency arose in the interpretation of ethnic and racial identity for equality data purposes. Some countries count migration status as indicative of ethnicity and skin colour, while others collect ethnicity and racial origin via individual self-identification. To ensure consistency and to take stock of various data collection approaches, migration-related data were reclassified as proxies for ethnicity and race, and ethnicity and racial data were only counted if based on self-identification.

From the responses to the questionnaire, indices were created to analyse the extent of mainstreaming for all at-risk groups in OECD EU countries. Indices were constructed separately for mainstreaming efforts for each at-risk group in each of the countries that responded to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire (like the construction of the OECD LGBTI Inclusivity Index (2020[7])). This enables a comparison of the extent of national mainstreaming efforts for each at-risk group and can show whether countries prioritise equality mainstreaming for specific at-risk groups or pursue mainstreaming comprehensively across all at‑risk groups.

Figure 5.3 shows the components of the index. Each medium blue box represents a component of different mainstreaming mechanisms. Each mechanism receives an equal weighting in the index. This approach implies assuming that each mechanism is equally important, which may not be correct but is necessitated by the absence of information about the relative importance of each mechanism. It also follows the same methodological approach used for other OECD inclusion indices (e.g. the OECD LGBTI Inclusivity Index (2020[7])).

For most of the mechanisms (e.g. coordination processes), a simple count system is used (i.e. 1 = the presence of coordination processes; 0 = the absence of coordination processes). In the case of the mechanism of equality strategies, a more complex count system is used that reflects both quantitative and qualitative assessments, such as guidance from the European Network Against Racism (ENAR (2019[8])) on features of good-practice equality strategies. Good‑practice equality strategies consider intersectionality, which recognises that a person can be discriminated against on a combination of grounds that interact and are impossible to untangle, thus creating a specific experience of discrimination; as well as structural discrimination, which occurs when rules, norms, routines, patterns or attitudes and behaviour in institutions and other societal structures represent obstacles to certain people in achieving the same rights and opportunities that are available to the majority of the population. Finally, in some cases (such as data collection and staff training) the unit value reflects the extent of the coverage, in terms of areas of life in which data on at-risk groups are collected (e.g. on employment outcomes), or in terms of the sectors in which anti-bias training is offered to staff (such as in education and training or health).

The values for all mainstreaming mechanisms are averaged to obtain an overall mainstreaming index between 0 and 1 for each at-risk group. A value of 0 indicates that a country does not undertake any equality mainstreaming for that specific at-risk group, while 1 means that the country has a comprehensive suite of measures that address all the elements examined (as outlined in Figure 5.3). A value between 0 and 1 means that some, but not all, of the mainstreaming mechanisms examined through the questionnaire are in place for the at-risk group.

Figure 5.3. Components of the mainstreaming index
Copy link to Figure 5.3. Components of the mainstreaming index

Source: Based on the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire.

5.2. State of equality mainstreaming in OECD EU countries

Copy link to 5.2. State of equality mainstreaming in OECD EU countries

Responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire reveal the emergence of different approaches to mainstreaming in OECD EU countries (Box 5.2). Some countries, like Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Luxembourg score highly (above 0.7) for each group, reflecting their commitments to equality mainstreaming for all at-risk groups (Figure 5.4). Of note, these countries have equality strategies for all groups at risk of discrimination, with most plans acknowledging the systemic barriers to equality and the importance of taking an intersectional approach (see below for more information). These equality strategies can be an effective way to orient policymaking towards equality and non-discrimination, and set out concrete steps to improve data collection, evaluation, coordination, engagement and institutional capability – all of which contribute to mainstreaming (European Network Against Racism, 2019[8]). Moreover, these countries have well‑developed policies tailored to the needs and circumstances of all at-risk groups (Chapter 4).

Box 5.2. Two approaches to mainstreaming: Broad-based and targeted

Copy link to Box 5.2. Two approaches to mainstreaming: Broad-based and targeted

The Netherlands: Towards a comprehensive approach to mainstreaming

Mainstreaming is pursued comprehensively in the Netherlands, as national action plans cover all protected grounds, and there is a national agency tasked with coordinating equality policy implementation. The National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism engages with the public, keeps the government accountable for achieving its equality goals (as it is independent of government) and develops a national programme based on consultation with stakeholders on priority areas. The programme aims to “tackle discrimination in all its aspects”, with targeted efforts in housing, employment, and health, along with profiling against Muslim people, anti-Black racism, institutional racism and discrimination against LGBTI people. Funding arrangements reinforce overarching policy strategies, for example a five-year Equality Subsidy Scheme for civil society organisations was announced in the LGBTI strategy to help achieve policy aims (Government of the Netherlands, 2024[9]; Government of the Netherlands, 2024[10]).

In October 2023, following an independent evaluation and three working conferences with stakeholders, the Dutch Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations announced a comprehensive plan to further improve the anti-discrimination system by introducing a central organisation for fighting discrimination in an “accessible, connected, decisive, and unburdening” fashion and amending Dutch anti‑discrimination legislation. The amendments are aimed at promoting coordination, such as requiring the central organisation to support municipal governments to implement anti-discrimination actions and clarifying the complaint handling processes involving the central organisation, police and judiciary (Chapter 4). Both the revised legislation and the new central organisation are expected to enter into force in January 2027 (Government of the Netherlands, 2024[10]).

Austria: Political leadership against ageism

Age discrimination has been a priority for the Austrian Government for the past two decades, as articulated in the Federal Senior Citizens Act (No. 84/1998). This Act established the Federal Seniors Advisory Council as a forum for dialogue between organisations representing senior citizens and policymakers.

The council can comment on all legislation related to senior citizens, and annually, is involved in negotiations on pension adjustments and other budget schemes. Systemically including the voices of seniors in policymaking processes has helped to shape active ageing and health policies, including health the Health for Generations scheme (administered by the Austrian Health Promotion Fund), which aims to create a positive image of ageing while also advancing a care-centred approach to health (as well as the Community Nursing pilot project discussed in Chapter 4). In addition, seniors’ representatives have helped to influence the design of policies in areas outside of the Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection (which has primary policy responsibility for ageing), such as in adult training (developed by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research) (Government of Austria, 2021[11]).

Most countries, however, focus on mainstreaming for specific protected grounds, principally disability, ethnicity and race, and age – despite EU guidance to pursue equality mainstreaming across the board (Figure 5.4). The emphasis on these protected grounds partially reflects the evolution of EU anti‑discrimination and equality initiatives. For instance, ethnic and racial discrimination came to the fore in the 1970s and 1980s with the adoption of the Joint Declaration Against Racism and Xenophobia (Bell, 2002[12]) and the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) in 2000, which prohibited discrimination in many areas of life – while mainstreaming for disability was first sparked in 2003 by the creation of the Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities: A European Action Plan (European Commission, 2003[13]) (Chapter 4). Conversely, legal protections for other grounds cover only employment-related settings, and equality strategies are relatively more recent, beginning in 2020 with the adoption of the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy and the EU Strategy on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (Annex 5.A).

Figure 5.4. Mainstreaming is established in most OECD EU countries, although efforts are not generally broad based
Copy link to Figure 5.4. Mainstreaming is established in most OECD EU countries, although efforts are not generally broad based

Mainstreaming indices for each at-risk group, 21 OECD EU countries

There is also evidence that OECD EU countries are pursuing the EU’s “twin track” approach, which stresses the need for mainstreaming to accompany proactive policies to advance the equality of groups that face barriers to the equality of opportunity. Figure 5.5 shows that inclusion policies are positively correlated with mainstreaming efforts (the construction of the policy index is described in Chapter 4). As indicated by the predominance of orange and dark blue dots in the top right corner of Figure 5.5, most OECD EU countries have both mainstreaming and bespoke policies for disability and ethnic and racial equality. In contrast, the green dots representing LGBTI policy and mainstreaming initiatives are spread out, with some countries scoring highly on proactive policies and mainstreaming for LGBTI people, while other countries have less developed LGBTI policies and have not pursued LGBTI equality mainstreaming (Chapter 4). Religious minorities are relatively underserved, as depicted by the concentration of light purple dots in the bottom left corner of Figure 5.5, with only Finland having widespread policies for religious minorities and elements of mainstreaming – namely a strong action plan, well‑established stakeholder engagement processes, staff training, policy coordination and predictable funding arrangements (although equality data collections are limited).

Among those countries in which mainstreaming is not currently practised, comprehensive EU anti‑discrimination legislation can prompt relevant ministries to act in all areas of life regulated by the law. For example, the new Equality Body Directive (EU) 2024/1499 will support mainstreaming efforts, as equality bodies will have the power to share good practices and mainstreaming, and provide information, training, advice and support on prevention (Chapter 4).

Figure 5.5. Mainstreaming is positively correlated with proactive policies to promote equality
Copy link to Figure 5.5. Mainstreaming is positively correlated with proactive policies to promote equality

Mainstreaming and policy indices for each at-risk group, 21 OECD EU countries

Beyond the notable effect of the EU guidance and laws, OECD EU countries’ mainstreaming approaches have been influenced by their national contexts. For instance, Czechia has been closing gaps in disability rights, which were not recognised as a policy priority prior to 1991 (Sinecka, 2009[14]), when the Czech Government established a national board to coordinate policy advice on the equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Since 1992, the board has developed disability equality plans (approved by the government) (Government of Czechia, 2020[15]). Simultaneously, civil society organisations were established to advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities and need for services, which culminated in the establishment of the Czech National Disability Council in 2000 to improve cooperation with local, regional and national policymakers (Government of Czechia, 2020[15]). A further milestone came with the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability in 2009 – a year prior to the EU doing so (United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2024[16]; Government of Czechia, 2020[15]).

Differences in mainstreaming approaches also reflect national institutional arrangements – such as formally instituting mainstreaming via legislation, in the case of Spain, Latvia, Luxembourg and Greece, or taking a more flexible approach by setting up ad hoc inter-departmental working groups and case-by-case stakeholder engagement processes, in Ireland and Denmark. While different approaches work in different national contexts (and implementation issues should be accounted for when considering adopting the good‑practice examples highlighted in the remainder of this chapter), Spain’s recent institutional changes indicate that institutional settings can change markedly in a short span of time. Since 2022, Spain has been in the process of transforming its equality institutions, starting with the passage of a comprehensive equality law, establishing a dedicated Ministry of Equality and beginning processes to revitalise the national equality body and systematise the collection of equality data. These largescale developments have the potential to accelerate equality mainstreaming across the board if stakeholders continue to understand and support their implementation.

Principle 1: Whole-of-government approach

As discussed throughout this report, discrimination occurs in many areas of life and has broad-ranging effects on people’s lives, which has prompted policy responses in employment, education and training, social services, justice and safety and health (as shown in Chapter 4). Indeed, whole‑of‑government approaches have been a key pillar of the EU Union of Equality, as demonstrated by calls for national equality plans and strategies outlined in the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan and the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy. The wide gamut of policy areas involved in non-discrimination and equality was revealed by the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire, with an average of six ministries involved in the preparation of each OECD EU country’s response. The breadth of policy initiatives is a positive development in the fight against discrimination and inequality, but it can exacerbate coordination problems – both within national governments and across levels of government. A lack of coordination can blur policy coherence, lead to a duplication of efforts or policy issues falling through the cracks between departmental or jurisdictional responsibility (OECD, 2023[6]).

OECD EU countries use various ways to overcome coordination problems, when implementing whole‑of‑government approaches. Anti‑discrimination and equality strategies can be an effective way for articulating a clear policy rationale and key government actions to fight discrimination and inequality, along with defining roles and responsibilities for policy institutions and civil society organisations, stakeholder engagement and evaluation processes (European Network Against Racism, 2019[8]). The OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire reveals that national strategies are most frequent for disability and ethnicity and race, mirroring the policy emphasis placed on these grounds more broadly (Chapter 4, Figure 5.6, Panel A).

Figure 5.6. Many OECD EU countries have developed national equality strategies for disability, ethnicity and race
Copy link to Figure 5.6. Many OECD EU countries have developed national equality strategies for disability, ethnicity and race

OECD EU respondent countries with national equality strategies, including the subset that consider structural and intersectional aspects of discrimination, by protected ground, 21 OECD EU countries

Moreover, according to responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire, most OECD EU countries have plans that follow good practice by addressing structural or systemic discrimination and intersectionality. Almost three-quarters of OECD EU respondents that have national plans, take a structural or systemic approach, which dismantles the “rules, norms, routines, patterns or attitudes and behaviours… [that] represent obstacles to certain people in achieving the same rights and opportunities that are available to the majority of the population” (European Network Against Racism, 2019, p. 11[8]) (Figure 5.6, Panel B). Furthermore, more than half of plans consider intersectionality, which recognises the multiplicity of disadvantages people face and results in a more holistic vision of how discrimination (Figure 5.6, Panel C).

Complementing national equality strategies, most OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire have methods of coordinating their policy processes to further their whole‑of‑government approach (Table 5.1). Coordination across national government policy departments (horizontal coordination) is more common than coordination between national, regional and local levels of government (vertical coordination), although most countries have vertical coordination processes too. Almost all OECD EU countries that responded to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire coordinate equality policies across national government agencies, such as social policy, health, and culture departments, as well as national statistical offices; while three-quarters of questionnaire respondents coordinate across levels of government, such as via joint funding arrangements or articulating regional equality policy responsibilities in strategy documents and action plans, or establishing a national central equality organisation to support local governments in implementing anti-discrimination initiatives (Table 5.1).

	National policy department with broad equality remit	Horizontal coordination across national government departments	Vertical coordination between different levels of government (e.g. national, regional and/or local)
AUT	○	●	●
BEL	●	●	●
CZE	○	●	●
DEU	●	●	●
DNK	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●
FRA	○	●	●
GRC	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●
LTU	●	●	●
LUX	●	●	●
LVA	○	●	●
NLD	●	●	●
POL	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	●
SVK	●	●	○
SVN	○	○	○
SWE	●	●	●

Source: OECD analysis based on national government responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire from Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, and national and regional responses from Belgium.

Horizontal coordination is supported by interministerial committees, which in some cases such as Luxembourg and Greece, are backed by legislation setting out aims, membership, frequency of meetings and reporting requirements. The benefits of legislating interministerial committees are that it formalises structured coordination, sets out objectives, roles and responsibilities clearly and gives the public visibility, although it is a less flexible approach to ad hoc committees, which can be more quickly set up and adapted to changing policy environments. In addition, many OECD EU respondent countries task a department or an independent body with primary responsibility for equality policy to facilitate coordination and put equality and non‑discrimination considerations front and centre in the minds of policymakers (good examples include Spain’s Ministry of Equality and the Netherlands’s independent National Coordinator Against Discrimination and Racism (Figure 5.7)). Meanwhile, France’s new Le Service Public Départemental de l’Autonomie highlights how strong regional-national coordination can help to provide holistic healthcare, and social services for older people and persons with disabilities whose needs often go unmet in systems with fragmented service delivery (Figure 5.7).

A few key lessons emerge from these examples, notwithstanding the differences in their design and implementation (Figure 5.7). They set clear overarching equality policy objectives and departmental roles and responsibilities (including a body with overarching responsibility and a broad remit), which is important for overcoming policy fragmentation (OECD, 2023[6]). Further, the good examples selected include a public commitment to equality, signalling the priority given to equality and non-discrimination and raising awareness of opportunities for people and communities at risk of discrimination to become involved in policymaking processes, and to gain an insight into the progress governments are making in achieving their objectives. Finally, strong ministerial leadership, in particular, can assist in influencing other departments to adjust policies and commit resources to meet equality objectives (OECD, 2019[17]). Alternatively, an independent equality coordinator (such as in the Netherlands) can publicly raise concerns about government policies and build community support for policy change in ways that are unavailable to government ministries.

Figure 5.7. Good whole-of-government practices in OECD EU countries
Copy link to Figure 5.7. Good whole-of-government practices in OECD EU countries

Principle 2: Stakeholder engagement and participation

Groups at risk of discrimination and their representatives, including civil society organisations, play a crucial role in the fight for equality. Stakeholders can steer policy outcomes by providing feedback on policy and law proposals, by raising concerns about emerging issues or under-funding of services, by participating in evaluation processes and, by developing innovative policy solutions (OECD, 2019[17]; OECD, 2018[22]). In addition, stakeholder engagement enhances trust in public institutions by increasing the legitimacy and popular support for adopted policy choices (OECD, 2020[23]).

The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire shows that stakeholder participation mechanisms are widespread in OECD EU respondent countries (Figure 5.8). Almost all OECD EU respondents have ways to incorporate the perspectives of persons with disabilities, racialised communities, young or old people; while three-quarters of respondents include LGBTI people and over two-thirds include religious minorities.

Figure 5.8. Formalised processes to encourage at-risk groups to participate in policymaking are widespread
Copy link to Figure 5.8. Formalised processes to encourage at-risk groups to participate in policymaking are widespread

21 OECD EU respondent countries

Despite the availability of opportunities for at-risk groups to participate in policymaking processes in OECD EU countries, there can be obstacles to doing so (OECD, 2025[24]). There may be a lack awareness of how to engage, and formats may not be accessible (if consultation documents are too long or technical for a non‑expert audience to understand, or if the only option is to provide written submissions for policy reviews or to attend townhall meetings in person) (Alemanno, 2015[25]). People may also feel intimidated by the settings in which consultations takes place, especially if they are in government or parliamentary buildings (OECD, 2025[26]).

Moreover, there may also be cultural differences in how to engage people respectfully. There may be some topics that are taboo or there may be cultural protocols that government officials should observe (such as respecting Muslim people’s prayer times and acknowledging that some Muslim women may not feel comfortable communicating with men who are not their relatives) (Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019, 2020[27]). Stakeholders may also experience consultation fatigue if they do not see the effects of their contributions in the final outcome – especially if consultation is a “tick‑box exercise” to legitimise decisions already taken (Alemanno, 2015[25]). This may lead to stakeholders opting out of future engagement processes. Finally, people who are at risk of discrimination may distrust governments if they, or their communities, have been systematically mistreated by government policies and public institutions (Sweeney and Matthews, 2017[28]).

There are, however, examples of stakeholder engagement processes in OECD EU countries that overcome these barriers (Figure 5.9). Many good examples have established ongoing processes for engaging with at-risk groups, such as Denmark’s Senior Citizens’ Councils, Luxembourg’s High Council for Disabled People and Finland’s Ethnic Relations Advisory Boards, which meet multiple times a year and provide channels for people to directly input into policy. They also publish their decisions, which gives the public more visibility about how they are shaping decisions. Similarly, in Ireland, persons with disabilities and their families are co-designing the upcoming national disability strategy – thereby having a decision‑making role in the future of disability equality policy. Ireland’s consultation processes have additional good features, including taking an intersectional approach designed to encourage people with specific needs and perspectives to get involved. Finally, France has undertaken substantial engagement to develop the National Plan for Equality Against Anti-LGBT Hatred and Discrimination, including consultation in regional areas and businesses.

Figure 5.9. Good examples of stakeholder engagement processes
Copy link to Figure 5.9. Good examples of stakeholder engagement processes

Principle 3: Accountability, monitoring, and evaluation

Assessing and reporting on the performance of equality initiatives is central to the success of mainstreaming. Measuring, evaluating, and monitoring policies enable decisionmakers to determine the extent to which they succeed in promoting equality. Regular monitoring can encourage continuous improvement and sharing best practices, while ensuring value for money, and an opportunity for the public to keep track of progress towards policy goals.

The OECD has started to incorporate a ‘human rights and gender equality’ lens into its evaluation guidance to recognise the differentiated impacts of policies on groups at risk of discrimination (OECD, 2023[32]). Under this approach, evaluation mechanisms should understand the underlying drivers of discrimination, the interaction of different forms of discrimination, and how discrimination affects individuals’ socioeconomic situation and policy outcomes. Beyond assessing how intersecting forms of discrimination affect the needs and priorities of groups at-risk, evaluations should also account for variations in policy efficacy across groups.

Most OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire have evaluation processes in place, at least for some at-risk groups (Table 5.2). Almost all OECD EU countries plan evaluations as part of the policymaking process, and three‑quarters consider data requirements for evaluations and involve at-risk groups in the evaluation process. However, evaluations that measure the impacts of policies are not regularly conducted, primarily due to data limitations, and publicly reporting on equality policy activities is not routine among all questionnaire respondents.

	Evaluations are planned as part of policy processes	Data requirements are considered at an early stage of the policy process	Impact evaluations are conducted	Qualitative evaluations are conducted due to data limitations	At-risk groups are included in evaluation processes	Regular reporting on anti-discrimination and equality policy activities
AUT	●	●	●	●	●	●
BEL	●	○	●	●	●	●
CZE	●	●	●	●	●	○
DEU	●	●	○	○	●	○
DNK	●	●	●	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●	●	●	●
FRA	●	●	●	●	●	●
GRC	●	●	○	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	○	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●	●	●	●
LTU	●	○	○	○	○	●
LUX	●	●	○	●	●	●
LVA	●	●	●	●	●	●
NLD	●	●	●	●	●	●
POL	●	○	○	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	○	○	●	●
SVK	●	●	○	○	○	○
SVN	○	○	○	○	○	○
SWE	●	○	●	●	○	○

Note: Countries were asked in the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire if they plan evaluations as part of the policy development processes, whether data requirements are considered from the outset of the policymaking process to aid data collection, whether impact evaluations are conducted, whether other forms of evaluations (such as qualitative evaluations) are undertaken because of data constraints, whether civil society organisations and/or people with lived experience are consulted during evaluations, and whether there are regular reporting on anti‑discrimination activities. Based on national government responses from Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, and national and regional government responses from Belgium.

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

Equality data are a prerequisite for understanding discrimination and monitoring and evaluating policies and programmes. These data can be any piece of quantitative or qualitative information that is useful for describing and analysing the state of equality (European Commission, 2016[33]). More specifically, equality data may include information on how people self-identify as belonging to groups at risk of discrimination, their life outcomes in key fields such as employment, income, education, life satisfaction, health, justice and safety, housing and social connections, as well as their participation in government programmes. While recognising the challenges that countries face in collecting, managing and publishing such data (Figure 5.11 below), without such data, countries lack evidence on the disadvantages people experience and have little sense of the effectiveness of their policy and legislative responses (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]).

For the past 30 years, the EU has called for improvements in the collection and publication of equality data (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]), and has recently developed guidance on preparing and using data on racial and ethnic origin and LGBTI status (Subgroup on Equality Data of the High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity, 2023[35]; 2021[36]), as well as improving the statistical data on the living situation of persons with disabilities and national disability policies and programmes (European Union, 2021[37]). Eurostat is publishing more data on the lives of persons with disabilities, in line with the European Commission’s Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030, and is chairing an Equality and Non-Discrimination Statistics Task Force to synchronise definitions and improve comparability of national data collections related to ethnicity and racial origin, sexual orientation and gender identity (Annex 5.A; Eurostat (2024[38]). Outside of EU-led efforts, some countries collect information on individuals’ ethnicity, race and religion in their national censuses, while others are developing official surveys of people’s experiences of discrimination and their living conditions (Chapter 1).

However, most EU Member States do not systematically collect official data (e.g. administrative data and representative general social surveys) that can be used for the purposes of understanding the state of discrimination and the effects of policy responses (Hardy and Schraepen, 2024[39]; Subgroup on Equality Data of the High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity, 2023[35]; 2021[36]). Results from the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire indicate that equality data collections are especially lacking for LGBTI people, religious minorities and racialised communities – although proxies for ethnic and racial minorities, such as nationality or migration are commonly collected (Figure 5.10; Valfort (forthcoming[40])). Moreover, equality data are less likely to be collected on people’s interactions with the justice system and their self-perceived life satisfaction than in employment, education, health and poverty and social exclusion.

Figure 5.10. Official data are widely available for persons at risk of disability or age discrimination, as well as proxies for ethnic and racial minority status, but not as much for other grounds
Copy link to Figure 5.10. Official data are widely available for persons at risk of disability or age discrimination, as well as proxies for ethnic and racial minority status, but not as much for other grounds

Equality data collections in key areas of life for various groups at risk of discrimination, 21 OECD EU countries

Several challenges remain for countries in collecting and publishing equality data (Figure 5.11). There are concerns about collecting information on racialised groups, in particular, owing to the sensitivity of the data, the legacy of genocide and categorisation of certain ethnic groups as inferior during World War II, and concerns that the data will be used to reinforce negative stereotypes about people at risk of discrimination (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]; Hardy and Schraepen, 2024[39]; European Commission, 2017[43]). Many of these issues were raised in response to the OECD Anti‑Discrimination Questionnaire, with more than two-thirds of OECD EU respondents stating concerns about the effects on at-risk groups of collecting and using data, and over half mentioning privacy and legal concerns (Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11. Barriers to the collection and publication of equality data
Copy link to Figure 5.11. Barriers to the collection and publication of equality data

Reasons why countries are limited in collecting and/or publishing equality data, 21 OECD EU countries

Despite the concerns raised in responses to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire, the European public supports efforts to collect equality data and is willing to provide national statistical organisations with sensitive, personal data to further policy developments. Almost 70% of respondents to the 2023 Discrimination in the EU Eurobarometer support providing information about their ethnicity, skin colour, religion and disability as part of national censuses and other data collection exercises, while 60% support the collection of gender identity and sexual orientation data (Figure 5.12, Panel A).

Support for equality data collection is broadly based across countries and at-risk groups – with most people who identify as part of an at-risk group based on their sexual orientation, skin colour, ethnic origin (including Roma), religion, gender identity and disability in favour of providing statistical information corresponding to their identities (Figure 5.12, Panels A and B). In recognition of the value that equality data have for advancing inclusion and equality, support for data provision is highest among people who identify as part of a minority group and in countries that are most accepting of minority groups, such as Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands (Figure 5.12, Panel A, Chapter 3, Hardy and Schraepen (2024[39])).

Figure 5.12. Most Europeans are willing to provide sensitive, personal data for statistical purposes
Copy link to Figure 5.12. Most Europeans are willing to provide sensitive, personal data for statistical purposes

Share of population that is in favour of providing anonymous personal information for statistical purposes, by country and self-identified minority status, 2023

Concerns about the collection and use of equality data can also be managed by statistical and policy agencies. For instance, data collectors can apply a “do no harm” principle, ensuring that data do not create or reinforce discrimination, bias or stereotypes, and are only collected for the purposes of benefitting at‑risk groups and society at large (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2018[45]; Subgroup on Equality Data of the High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity, 2021[36]). This can be achieved by engaging groups at risk of discrimination in data collection and analysis, responding seriously to at-risk groups’ concerns, providing at-risk groups with the tools to use the data to understand and advocate for their communities, and collecting personal data only where essential and on a voluntary basis (i.e. by permitting a non-response option for those who do not wish to provide this information) (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2018[45]).

EU legislation provides principles to protect the rights of the public when providing personal data. Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) stipulates criteria for the processing of personal data including a person’s racial or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, genetic and biometric data, health and sexual orientation. These criteria include that a person must give explicit consent for the processing of their data for specified purposes, or that processing the data are necessary for protecting a person’s vital interests, or that processing the data has a substantial public interest.

At the national level, Spain’s Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law (2022), requires public authorities to publish studies, reports or statistics to promote the aims of equality – provided that the collection and publication of such material is in line with international standards, including the protection of personal data. The clear declaration of the need for equality data and requirements placed on the proper collection and use of these data helps to build community trust that data will be collected for advancing equality in ways that maintain personal privacy (Productivity Commission, 2017[46]).

In Ireland and the Slovak Republic, the community is involved in the collection and use of data, in order to build trust and allay privacy concerns (Figure 5.13). These countries work with marginalised communities to develop the purpose for data collection, the types of data needed and ways of publishing information to be of use to the community and meet policy goals. As a result, Ireland and the Slovak Republic have disaggregated data on the life outcomes of Roma and Travellers, which can then inform policy responses. Further, Ireland is developing an equality data strategy to systematically collect information to improve the measurements of the impacts of policies on people’s lives and support the future development of national equality strategies.

Moreover, strides are being made to improve data collections in countries that have traditionally taken a “colour blind” approach, in which information on ethnicity and racial origin is seen to be at odds with the democratic ideal of impartiality (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]). Germany, for example, has created the National Discrimination and Racism Monitor to track the causes and consequences of discrimination, for the purposes of improving the understanding of, and response to, discrimination and racism (Figure 5.13). In doing so, the monitor helps to overcome the main drawbacks of the “colour blind” approach, namely rendering invisible the lives of at-risk groups, and the problems they face (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018[34]). Similarly, the Netherlands regularly monitors attitudes towards LGBTI people, and has invested the National Coordinator Against Discrimination and Racism with the responsibility to assess the performance of government ministries and report publicly.

Figure 5.13. Good data collection, accountability and monitoring practices
Copy link to Figure 5.13. Good data collection, accountability and monitoring practices

Principle 4: Institutional capability

Although government staff have deep knowledge of the policy sector they oversee (e.g. education, health, or housing), they may lack both the capability and resources to put equality and non-discrimination at the heart of the policymaking process (Barrett, 2024[54]; Freidenvall and Ramberg, 2021[55]). Instilling policymakers with an “equality perspective” can be achieved in multiple ways, such as through hiring people with a lived experience of discrimination or from at-risk groups, training people on the issues facing at-risk groups and how their needs can be better met through policy, and dedicating resources to encourage equality and knowledge diffusion.

OECD EU countries primarily use training and funding arrangements to build institutional equality capability. It appears that OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire have taken a risk‑based approach towards training, with programmes more likely to be offered in contexts in which at‑risk groups face the highest likelihood of, or consequences from, discrimination (Figure 5.14). For example, in 80% of OECD EU respondents, training against racial and ethnic discrimination is provided to staff working in education settings (where Roma communities have traditionally faced segregation) and in justice and law enforcement – where young male adults who self‑identify as belonging to an ethnic minority, or as Muslim, are more likely to be stopped by the police than other groups (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2021[56]). That said, the prevalence of police stops of people of African descent has fallen between 2016 and 2022, with large declines in Austria, Finland, Germany, Lithuania and Portugal (according to a survey of people of African descent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023[57]). Similarly, more than 70% of OECD EU respondents to the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire provide training to counter disability discrimination in education, training and employment services, reflecting the barriers that persons with disabilities have to obtaining secure, well‑paying jobs (European Disability Forum, 2023[58]) (Chapter 4).

Figure 5.14. Training to build awareness of biases against persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities are present in most OECD EU countries
Copy link to Figure 5.14. Training to build awareness of biases against persons with disabilities and people from racialised communities are present in most OECD EU countries

Training by policy and service area, 21 OECD EU countries

However, the efficacy of anti-bias training programmes has been questioned, with research pointing to one-off trainings not leading to long-term behavioural changes, and the potential for inciting backlash. Effective training programmes can overcome these challenges, for instance by rolling out awareness and skills-development training over a prolonged period, and organising training on a voluntary basis (Cheng et al., 2018[59]). Belgium’s training programme has many of these positive features including being opt-in for employment services that want to know more about helping victims of discrimination, and having a follow-up component to reinforce lessons (Figure 5.15).

In conjunction with high-quality training, equality considerations can be incorporated into budget processes. For example, Ireland has piloted an equality budgeting approach, in which policy departments were encouraged to consider the effects of planned policy actions on at-risk groups – the only OECD country to pursue equality budgeting horizontally (instead of focusing on gender equality mainstreaming). An OECD scan found that Ireland’s implementation of the equality budgeting pilot was ‘relatively successful in pushing for equality considerations to be on the radar of government departments when they set performance metrics as part of the annual budget process’ (Nicol and Guven, 2021, p. 131[48]). As part of the pilot, policy departments voluntarily identified programmes with an equality dimension and set performance targets (first, in relation to gender, and then broadened in 2018 to be more inclusive). However, a number of obstacles were identified, including:

the breadth of the concept of “equality”, which made it difficult to assess departmental efforts in the absence of an overarching equality strategy or set of goals.
the efforts needed to convince departments to participate, as equality budgeting was not obligatory and there was a lack of clarity and buy in about the goals of the initiative.
the complexity of collecting equality data.

The OECD scan highlighted ideas to make Ireland’s equality budgeting approach more robust, including an analysis of the equality impacts of baseline government expenditure and introducing an equality dimension into resource allocation. Moreover, equality dimensions could be incorporated into evaluation, performance and external audits (Nicol and Guven, 2021[48]). Since the equality budgeting pilot, Ireland has further developed its equality strategies for disability, LGBTI, and Roma and Travellers, and is now developing an equality data strategy to support policy decisions more holistically (see above).

Given the novelty of Ireland’s equality budgeting approach, other OECD EU countries have embedded equality into funding considerations in other ways, for instance through applying for EU funds and setting funding commitments as part of multi-year planning. The EU administers various funds to further national equality policy and mainstreaming objectives, chief among them being the ESF+. The ESF+ funds many of the good practices highlighted in this chapter and Chapter 4, such as the innovative community nursing pilot in Austria (in Chapter 4), data developments in marginalised Roma communities in the Slovak Republic, workplace diversity and inclusion initiatives in Belgium and disability awareness raising activities in Latvia. Latvia’s ESF+ grants are also used to enhance information and education for policy planners, implementers, and employers. This includes campaigns such as Stepping into Another’s Shoes and Do Differently – Get the Same Things Done!, as well as projects focused on deinstitutionalisation and the development of professional social work to promote disability inclusion and understanding. ESF+ funding arrangements encourage recipients to frame national initiatives in terms of broader European employment and social inclusion goals in line with the European Social Rights Pillar, thereby creating financial incentives for Member States to pursue equality.

While the ESF+ is an important mechanism for countries to innovate and improve their equality mainstreaming and proactive policies, there can be shortfalls in funding at the culmination of funding agreements. This means that good initiatives may be discontinued if alternative funding sources cannot be found. Indeed, in the absence of long-term, predictable funding arrangements, it can be difficult to plan services, upscale successful pilot programmes, apply policy lessons in new areas and sustain equality policy momentum. The lack of sustainable funding can also lead to ‘trial fatigue’ where policymakers and practitioners become unwilling to participate in new pilots and programmes because the effort of building new ways of operating is wasted once funding ends (Productivity Commission, 2021[60]).

The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire sought information on countries’ efforts to augment EU funding allocations, especially their predictable funding arrangements that enable recipients to plan their activities with some degree of assurance (such as multi-year funding arrangements or future funding announced in national equality plans). Almost 95% of OECD EU respondents revealed that they have some mechanism to signal future equality funding commitments, evenly split between announcements made in budget documents or in policy documents, such as equality strategies (Table 5.3).

	Multi-year funding allocated in budgets	Multi-year funding announced made in equality strategies
AUT	●	●
BEL	●	●
CZE	○	●
DEU	○	○
DNK	●	●
ESP	●	●
FIN	●	●
FRA	●	●
GRC	●	○
HUN	○	○
IRL	○	●
ITA	●	●
LTU	●	●
LUX	○	○
LVA	●	●
NLD	●	●
POL	○	○
PRT	●	●
SVK	○	●
SVN	○	●
SWE	●	○

Note: Countries were asked about whether they have predictable funding arrangements for equality activities, such as 3-5 year budget cycles or funding commitments published in national equality strategies.

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

In addition to the ESF+, innovative funding arrangements include the Gender and LGBTI Equality Subsidy Scheme in the Netherlands, the Irish Higher Education Authority’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Enhancement Fund, and Sweden’s religious community funds (Figure 5.15). These funds offer opportunities for organisations progressing equality to maintain their long-term operational feasibility (in the case of the Netherlands and Sweden), as well as contribute to broader engagement efforts with state institutions to build trust and understanding. In Ireland, the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Enhancement Fund promotes collaboration and knowledge sharing across the higher education sector by requiring three or more higher education institutions to work together on funded projects, with information on the projects and their outcomes to be disseminated to other higher education institutions (similar to what occurred during an earlier iteration of the fund, which focused on gender equality).

Figure 5.15. Good practices for building institutional capability
Copy link to Figure 5.15. Good practices for building institutional capability

Conclusion

This chapter has explored equality mainstreaming approaches developed by OECD EU countries, drawing on good practices identified by the OECD and European Commission. Despite differences in focus or terminology, equality mainstreaming approaches share many common features: whole-of-government coordination, systematic stakeholder engagement with at-risk groups, robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and high-quality training and resources to build and sustain policymaker capability. These elements aim to ensure that policymakers consistently consider the impact of decisions on groups at risk of discrimination – including people from racialised communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTI people, religious minorities, and people of different ages.

In assessing the breadth of OECD EU countries’ mainstreaming efforts through analyses of the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire, this chapter has found that mainstreaming is well established for disability equality and the equality of people from racialised communities, but not as much for LGBTI, religion and age. This pattern clearly shows the influence of the EU’s focus on equality, including through its policy guidance and use of ESF+ funds. While the EU’s recent Union of Equality initiatives are broadly based across grounds, there is a longer history for promoting disability and ethnic and racial inclusion via mainstreaming, as well as stronger legal protections against racial and disability discrimination.

There are, however, exceptions. Countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg pursue more comprehensive approaches to mainstreaming across all at-risk groups. Others – including Ireland, Finland, Austria, Denmark, Greece, and the Slovak Republic – demonstrate good practices in specific areas, which could potentially be expanded to other grounds. The examples highlighted in this chapter may serve as useful reference points for other OECD EU countries, although effective implementation will require adapting these approaches to national priorities, capacities, and institutional contexts.

Finally, this chapter has noted that there are positive signs for equality mainstreaming, with progress underway in areas that have historically been sensitive, such as equality data. Eurostat’s Equality and Non‑Discrimination Statistics Task Force and national statistical efforts to understand the experiences of people facing discrimination are promising developments, as is Spain’s institutional reforms to address discrimination systematically. Indeed, the implementation of Spain’s equality reforms could see it converge with countries that take a horizontal approach to mainstreaming.

References

[67] Actiris (n.d.), Choosing a Diversity Plan, https://www.actiris.brussels/fr/employeurs/choisir-un-plan-de-diversite/ (accessed on 10 December 2024).

[68] Actiris (n.d.), Discrino Training, https://www.actiris.brussels/fr/partenaires/formation-discrino/ (accessed on 10 Decemner 2024).

[25] Alemanno, A. (2015), “Stakeholder engagement in regulatory policy”, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2701675.

[34] Balestra, C. and L. Fleischer (2018), “Diversity statistics in the OECD: How do OECD countries collect data on ethnic, racial and indigenous identity?”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 09, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89bae654-en.

[54] Barrett, D. (2024), “Mainstreaming equality and human rights: Factors that inhibit and facilitate implementation in regulators, inspectorates and ombuds in England and Wales”, International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 20/2, pp. 204-228, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552323000307.

[12] 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.

[59] Cheng, S. et al. (2018), “Challenging diversity training myths: Changing the conversation about diversity training to shape science and practice”, Organizational Dynamics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.09.001.

[21] Colisée (2024), Spotlight on France’s New Autonomy Support Public Services (SPDA), https://colisee.fr/wp-content/newsletter/news-2024/34/newsletter_colisee_2024-34-article3EN.html (accessed on 31 January 2025).

[29] Danske Ældreråd (n.d.), Statutory Elected Senior Citizens´ Councils, https://danske-aeldreraad.dk/statutory-elected-senior-citizens-councils/.

[47] DeZIM Institut (2024), National Monitoring of Discrimination and Racism (NaDiRa), https://www.dezim-institut.de/en/institute/national-monitoring-of-discrimination-and-racism-nadira/#:~:text=The%20National%20Monitoring%20of%20Discrimination,based%20on%20various%20data%20sources. (accessed on 14 October 2024).

[66] equal.brussels (2023), Plan Bruxellois de Lutte Contre le Racisme 2023-2026.

[4] European Commission (2024), Handbook for Equality Mainstreaming at DG MOVE, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2832/824729.

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

[43] European Commission (2017), Data Collection in the Field of Ethnicity: Analysis and Comparative Review of Equality Data Collection Practices in the European Union, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-09/data_collection_in_the_field_of_ethnicity.pdf.

[33] European Commission (2016), European Handbook on Equality Data, https://doi.org/10.2838/397074.

[5] European Commission (2011), Compendium of Practice on Non-Discrimination/Equality Mainstreaming, European Union, Luxembourg, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/41463.

[13] European Commission (2003), Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities: A European Action Plan (2004-2010), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/equal-opportunities-for-people-with-disabilities-a-european-action-plan-2004-2010.html.

[69] 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.

[58] European Disability Forum (2023), 7th Human Rights Report - The Right to Work: The Employment Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Europe, https://www.edf-feph.org/content/uploads/2023/05/hr7_2023_press-accessible.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[8] European Network Against Racism (2019), Lessons for Effective National Anti-Racism Policies: National Action Plans Against Racism, https://www.enar-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/napar_lessons_for_effective_national_anti-racism_policies_final.pdf.

[37] European Union (2021), Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030, https://doi.org/10.2767/31633.

[57] 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.

[56] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2021), Your Rights Matter: Police Stops, European Union, Luxembourg.

[38] Eurostat (2024), Check Out Our New Thematic Section on Disability, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/wdn-20240111-1 (accessed on 9 December 2024).

[41] Eurostat (2024), Disability: Overview, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/disability/overview (accessed on 10 December 2024).

[42] Eurostat (n.d.), Migration and Asylum: Migrant Integration, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/migration-asylum/migrant-integration (accessed on 10 December 2024).

[31] Finland Ministry of Justice (2024), Etno: Advisory Board for Ethnic Relations, https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/the-advisory-board-for-ethnic-relations#:~:text=The%20Advisory%20Board%20for%20Ethnic%20Relations%20(Etno)%20serves%20as%20a,2020%20to%209%20December%202024. (accessed on 12 October 2024).

[20] France Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités, et des familles (2024), Le Service public départemental de l’Autonomie est officiellement lancé, https://handicap.gouv.fr/le-service-public-departemental-de-lautonomie-est-officiellement-lance (accessed on 31 January 2025).

[55] Freidenvall, L. and M. Ramberg (2021), “Implementing gender mainstreaming in Swedish Model Municipalities”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 17/2, pp. 225-249, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18001022.

[11] Government of Austria (2021), National Report Austria: Fourth Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002 and the Regional Implementation Strategy (MIPAA /RIS) 2018-2022, Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/mipaa20-report-austria.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2024).

[15] Government of Czechia (2020), National Plan for the Promotion of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 2021-2025, https://vlada.gov.cz/assets/ppov/vvzpo/National-Plan-for-the-Promotion-of-Equal-Opportunities-for-Persons-with-Disabilities-2021_2025.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2024).

[9] Government of the Netherlands (2024), Letter from the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations: Racism and Discrimination, Ministry of the Interior and Government Relations, The Hague, https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2024D14944 (accessed on 30 August 2024).

[10] Government of the Netherlands (2024), Report of the Working Conferences on the Anti-Discrimination Provisions System, Ministry of the Interior and Government Relations, The Hague, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/42e24715-ae4a-419f-b085-3e205bb3838c/file (accessed on 30 August 2024).

[19] Greece Ministry of Justice (2021), National Council Against Racism and Intolerance, https://ministryofjustice.gr/English/?p=785 (accessed on 10 October 2024).

[39] 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.

[50] Ireland Central Statistics Office (2024), Census 2027 Public Consultation, https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2027consultation/ (accessed on October 10 2024).

[49] Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (2022), Minister O’Gorman Announces the Development of a National Equality Data Strategy, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/5a7f4-minister-ogorman-announces-the-development-of-a-national-equality-data-strategy/ (accessed on 15 October 2024).

[61] Ireland Higher Education Authority (2024), Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Enhancement Fund, https://hea.ie/policy/gender/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-enhancement-fund/ (accessed on 3 November 2024).

[62] Ireland Higher Education Authority (n.d.), Athena SWAN Charter in Ireland, https://hea.ie/policy/gender/athena-swan/ (accessed on 3 November 2024).

[30] Luxembourg Ministry of Family Affairs, Solidarity, Living Together and Reception of Refugees (2024), High Council of Disabled People (CSPH), https://mfsva.gouvernement.lu/en/le-ministere/attributions/personnes-handicapees/organismes-consultatifs/conseil-superieur-des-personnes-handicapees-csph.html (accessed on 10 October 2024).

[48] Nicol, S. and P. Guven (2021), “OECD scan of equality budgeting in Ireland: Equality mainstreaming and inclusive policy making in action”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2021 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/80b7b9a5-en.

[26] OECD (2025), Challenges to the Political Representation of Immigrants and Their Children in Germany: A Case Study, https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/03/supporting-opportunities-insights-from-communities/challenges-to-the-political-representation-of-immigrants-and-their-children-in-germany-a-case-study.html (accessed on 9 April 2025).

[24] OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.

[2] OECD (2024), Unleashing Policy Coherence to Achieve the SDGs: An Assessment of Governance Mechanisms, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1c8dbf8-en.

[32] OECD (2023), Applying a Human Rights and Gender Equality Lens to the OECD Evaluation Criteria, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9aaf2f98-en.

[6] OECD (2023), Driving Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Accelerating Progress on the SDGs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6cb4aa1-en.

[3] OECD (2023), Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ddef555-en.

[1] OECD (2021), “The Inequality-Environment Nexus: Towards a people-centred green transition”, OECD Green Growth Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca9d8479-en.

[23] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.

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

[17] OECD (2019), Governance as an SDG Accelerator : Country Experiences and Tools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0666b085-en.

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

[53] Office of Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Roma Communities (2022), Evaluation and Monitoring of the Strategy for Equality, Inclusion and Participation of Roma until 2030, https://www.romovia.vlada.gov.sk/strategie/strategy-of-equality-inclusion-and-participation-of-roma-until-2030/.

[52] Panteia (2024), LGBTQIA+ Monitor 2024: Insights into the Living Conditions and Attitudes Toward LGBTQIA+ Individuals in the Netherlands, https://panteia.com/updates/news/lgbtqia-monitor-2024/ (accessed on 10 December 2024).

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

[46] Productivity Commission (2017), Data Availability and Use, Inquiry Report No. 82, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/data-access/report/data-access.pdf.

[27] Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019 (2020), Guide for Engaging with Muslim Communities, https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/assets/Publications/Booklet-Guide-for-Engaging-with-Muslim-communities.pdf.

[14] Sinecka, J. (2009), “The Czech Republic: Report on the current state of disability law and policy”, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 19/4, pp. 195-203, https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207308314947.

[35] Subgroup on Equality Data of the High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity (2023), Guidance Note on the Collection and Use of Data For LGBTIQ Equality, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/66adbc7e-99cb-4d88-a653-d7fbfba9d7e8_en?filename=Guidance%20note%20on%20the%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20data%20for%20LGBTIQ%20equality_FINAL.pdf.

[36] Subgroup on Equality Data of the High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality and Diversity (2021), Guidance Note on the Colletion and Use of Equality Data Based on Racial or Ethnic Origin, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/guidance_note_on_the_collection_and_use_of_equality_data_based_on_racial_or_ethnic_origin_final.pdf.

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

[65] Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities (n.d.), About the State Support for Faith Communities, https://www.myndighetensst.se/engelska/about-sst (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[28] Sweeney, S. and Z. Matthews (2017), Friends, Families and Travellers: A Guide for Professionals Working with Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in Children’s Services, https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A-guide-for-professionals-working-with-Gypsies-and-Travellers-in-the-public-care-system.pdf.

[63] The Netherlands Ministry for Education, Culture and Science (2022), Emancipation: A Task for All: Emancipation Memorandum 2022-2025, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-1061759.pdf.

[18] The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture amd Science (2022), Emancipation Memorandum 2022-2025, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-9442234d31a1e83aaed7b1a7dece2205bb92e2fe/pdf.

[51] The Netherlands National Coordinator Against Discrimination and Racism (2022), National Program Against Discrimination and Racism 2022.

[16] United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2024), European Union – IMM Situation, https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd/european-union-imm-situation#:~:text=The%20European%20Union%20ratified%20the,European%20Disability%20Forum%20(EDF). (accessed on 12 November 2024).

[45] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018), A Human Rights-Based Approach to Data: Leaving No One Behind in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/GuidanceNoteonApproachtoData.pdf.

[40] Valfort, M. (forthcoming), Strengthening the Evidence Base for Racial/Ethnic Disadvantage in OECD Countries.

Annex 5.A. EU equality mainstreaming facilitators

Copy link to Annex 5.A. EU equality mainstreaming facilitators

This annex presents EU mechanisms to instil equality mainstreaming in Member States, for instance by encouraging community engagement, funding equality initiatives, improving the collection and use of equality data, developing EU equality strategies, and coordinating policymakers to share best practices (Annex Table 5.A.1).

	Initiative
Community engagement processes	Appointment of the EU Anti-Racism Coordinator (2021), who liaises with people from racialised communities and relays their concerns to the Commission Appointment of the EU Coordinator on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2015), who consults with Jewish communities and organisations Appointment of the EU Coordinator on Combatting Anti-Muslim Hatred (2015), who is the main point of contact for organisations working in the field. Creation of the Permanent Anti-Racism Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) Forum (2021), which enables specialised CSOs to feed their expertise and experience into the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan implementation
Funding mechanisms for equality	PROGRESS policy programme (2007-2013) Rights, Equality, and Citizens Programme (2014-2020) Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values programme (CERV) (2021-2027), within the Justice, Rights, and Values Fund EQUAL initiative, within the European Employment Strategy European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) Recovery and Resilience Facility European Regional Development Fund
Equality strategies and plans	LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (2020-2025) – first plan EU Anti-Racism Action Plan (2020-2025) – first plan Gender Equality Strategy (2020-2025) – progressively updated since the Fourth Action Programme on Equal Opportunities in 1996 EU Roma Strategic Framework on Equality, Inclusion, and Participation (2020-2030) – progressively updated since 2011 Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2021-2030) – updated since 2003 EU Strategy on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030) – first plan
Equality data	Since 2018, the Subgroup on Equality Data within the High Level Group on Non‑Discrimination, Equality, and Diversity has produced a compendium of good practices, a Guidance Note on the Collection and Use of Equality Data Based on Racial or Ethnic Origin (2021) and a Guidance Note on the Collection and Use of Data for LGBTIQ Equality (2023) Eurostat Equality and Non-Discrimination Statistics Task Force (2023-ongoing) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights research and data
Policy learning, coordination, and dialogue	Creation of the European Institute for Gender Equality (2006) Broadening of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to the Fundamental Rights Agency (2007) Access City Awards (2010) to raise awareness of EU cities that have prioritised inclusion of persons with disabilities High Level Group on Non-Discrimination, Equality, and Diversity (2015) European Equality Law Network (formed in 2014 as a merger of the European Network of Legal Experts in the Non‑Discrimination Field and the European Network of Legal Experts in the field of Gender Equality) High Level Group on Combatting Hate Speech and Hate Crime (2016) Appointment of the first Commissioner for Equality (2019), whose work is supported by a Task Force on Equality European Disability Expertise (2020, formerly the Academic Network of European Disability Experts, which was established in 2007) EU LGBTIQ Equality Subgroup supports the implementation of the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (2021) European Capitals of Inclusion and Diversity Awards (2021) AccessibleEU (2022), a platform for building the capacity of EU Members to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities by increasing access to the built environment, transport, information and communication technologies The EU Anti-Racism Coordinator, EU Coordinator on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life and the EU Coordinator on Combatting Anti-Muslim Hatred engage with Member States, the European Parliament, academics and civil society to improve policies to fight racism, intolerance and discrimination.

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. 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[69]) 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.

← 2. The OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire collected information on national equality mainstreaming efforts. The exception is Belgium, which included examples from the regions of Wallonia, Flanders and the Brussels‑Capital Region, as well as national efforts, when completing the OECD Anti-Discrimination Questionnaire. This chapter includes Belgium’s national and regional policies as part of the gap analysis and in the identification of good practices. However, Belgium is not directly comparable to other OECD EU countries, which only provided national-level examples. As such, Belgium is not included in EU averages, as doing so would not be a fair comparison. Belgium is, however, included in most figures and tables to showcase the degree to which its mainstreaming efforts cover all protected grounds of interest.

	National policy department with broad equality remit	Horizontal coordination across national government departments	Vertical coordination between different levels of government (e.g. national, regional and/or local)
AUT	○	●	●
BEL	●	●	●
CZE	○	●	●
DEU	●	●	●
DNK	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●
FRA	○	●	●
GRC	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●
LTU	●	●	●
LUX	●	●	●
LVA	○	●	●
NLD	●	●	●
POL	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	●
SVK	●	●	○
SVN	○	○	○
SWE	●	●	●

	Evaluations are planned as part of policy processes	Data requirements are considered at an early stage of the policy process	Impact evaluations are conducted	Qualitative evaluations are conducted due to data limitations	At-risk groups are included in evaluation processes	Regular reporting on anti-discrimination and equality policy activities
AUT	●	●	●	●	●	●
BEL	●	○	●	●	●	●
CZE	●	●	●	●	●	○
DEU	●	●	○	○	●	○
DNK	●	●	●	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●	●	●	●
FRA	●	●	●	●	●	●
GRC	●	●	○	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	○	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●	●	●	●
LTU	●	○	○	○	○	●
LUX	●	●	○	●	●	●
LVA	●	●	●	●	●	●
NLD	●	●	●	●	●	●
POL	●	○	○	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	○	○	●	●
SVK	●	●	○	○	○	○
SVN	○	○	○	○	○	○
SWE	●	○	●	●	○	○

	Multi-year funding allocated in budgets	Multi-year funding announced made in equality strategies
AUT	●	●
BEL	●	●
CZE	○	●
DEU	○	○
DNK	●	●
ESP	●	●
FIN	●	●
FRA	●	●
GRC	●	○
HUN	○	○
IRL	○	●
ITA	●	●
LTU	●	●
LUX	○	○
LVA	●	●
NLD	●	●
POL	○	○
PRT	●	●
SVK	○	●
SVN	○	●
SWE	●	○

	National policy department with broad equality remit	Horizontal coordination across national government departments	Vertical coordination between different levels of government (e.g. national, regional and/or local)
AUT	○	●	●
BEL	●	●	●
CZE	○	●	●
DEU	●	●	●
DNK	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●
FRA	○	●	●
GRC	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●
LTU	●	●	●
LUX	●	●	●
LVA	○	●	●
NLD	●	●	●
POL	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	●
SVK	●	●	○
SVN	○	○	○
SWE	●	●	●

	Evaluations are planned as part of policy processes	Data requirements are considered at an early stage of the policy process	Impact evaluations are conducted	Qualitative evaluations are conducted due to data limitations	At-risk groups are included in evaluation processes	Regular reporting on anti-discrimination and equality policy activities
AUT	●	●	●	●	●	●
BEL	●	○	●	●	●	●
CZE	●	●	●	●	●	○
DEU	●	●	○	○	●	○
DNK	●	●	●	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●	●	●	●
FRA	●	●	●	●	●	●
GRC	●	●	○	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	○	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●	●	●	●
LTU	●	○	○	○	○	●
LUX	●	●	○	●	●	●
LVA	●	●	●	●	●	●
NLD	●	●	●	●	●	●
POL	●	○	○	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	○	○	●	●
SVK	●	●	○	○	○	○
SVN	○	○	○	○	○	○
SWE	●	○	●	●	○	○

	Multi-year funding allocated in budgets	Multi-year funding announced made in equality strategies
AUT	●	●
BEL	●	●
CZE	○	●
DEU	○	○
DNK	●	●
ESP	●	●
FIN	●	●
FRA	●	●
GRC	●	○
HUN	○	○
IRL	○	●
ITA	●	●
LTU	●	●
LUX	○	○
LVA	●	●
NLD	●	●
POL	○	○
PRT	●	●
SVK	○	●
SVN	○	●
SWE	●	○

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

	National policy department with broad equality remit	Horizontal coordination across national government departments	Vertical coordination between different levels of government (e.g. national, regional and/or local)
AUT	○	●	●
BEL	●	●	●
CZE	○	●	●
DEU	●	●	●
DNK	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●
FRA	○	●	●
GRC	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●
LTU	●	●	●
LUX	●	●	●
LVA	○	●	●
NLD	●	●	●
POL	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	●
SVK	●	●	○
SVN	○	○	○
SWE	●	●	●

	Evaluations are planned as part of policy processes	Data requirements are considered at an early stage of the policy process	Impact evaluations are conducted	Qualitative evaluations are conducted due to data limitations	At-risk groups are included in evaluation processes	Regular reporting on anti-discrimination and equality policy activities
AUT	●	●	●	●	●	●
BEL	●	○	●	●	●	●
CZE	●	●	●	●	●	○
DEU	●	●	○	○	●	○
DNK	●	●	●	○	●	●
ESP	●	●	●	●	●	●
FIN	●	●	●	●	●	●
FRA	●	●	●	●	●	●
GRC	●	●	○	●	●	○
HUN	○	○	○	○	○	○
IRL	●	●	○	●	●	●
ITA	●	●	●	●	●	●
LTU	●	○	○	○	○	●
LUX	●	●	○	●	●	●
LVA	●	●	●	●	●	●
NLD	●	●	●	●	●	●
POL	●	○	○	●	●	○
PRT	●	●	○	○	●	●
SVK	●	●	○	○	○	○
SVN	○	○	○	○	○	○
SWE	●	○	●	●	○	○

	Multi-year funding allocated in budgets	Multi-year funding announced made in equality strategies
AUT	●	●
BEL	●	●
CZE	○	●
DEU	○	○
DNK	●	●
ESP	●	●
FIN	●	●
FRA	●	●
GRC	●	○
HUN	○	○
IRL	○	●
ITA	●	●
LTU	●	●
LUX	○	○
LVA	●	●
NLD	●	●
POL	○	○
PRT	●	●
SVK	○	●
SVN	○	●
SWE	●	○