61% of respondents to a recent Eurobarometer survey on “Discrimination in the European Union” believe that discrimination based on skin colour is widespread. To address this, the European Commission launched the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan 2020-2025 and is now developing a post-2025 strategy that encourages EU countries to implement National Action Plans Against Racism (NAPARs). In this context, this report helps countries monitor and assess the impact of their NAPARs. The report first draws on a comprehensive review of academic literature to examine how bias-driven discrimination against visible minorities limits opportunities in education, school-to-work transition, employment, housing, and health. It then proposes indicators to measure this discrimination and suggests ways for countries to expand data collection on visible minorities, to enable more comprehensive monitoring of anti-racism efforts.
Monitoring and Assessing the Impact of National Action Plans Against Racism
Abstract
Executive summary
Visible minorities, defined as groups perceived as distinct from the majority population based on physical or cultural characteristics, make up a significant share of the population in EU countries. Focusing only on a subset of these minorities – namely immigrants and their immediate descendants of non-European background, for whom data are most available – their average share already ranges between 5% and 10% of the total population and is on the rise.
Yet, this subgroup faces substantial disadvantages. Some may stem from factors unrelated to racism, as non-European immigrants often come from lower-income countries and encounter greater barriers to language acquisition, recognition of foreign qualifications and citizenship compared to their peers of European descent. These challenges create disparities that often persist into the next generation. However, racism likely plays a significant role as well, which is unacceptable from a human rights perspective. Visible minorities, whether long-standing or recently arrived, are at risk of being “racialised” – not just seen as distinct, but as inherently “other” – a process that fuels racism and racial/ethnic bias.
In a context where evidence suggests that such bias is widespread and thus can lead to pervasive discrimination, this report seeks to determine whether bias-driven discrimination against visible minorities is a reality and, if so, how its impact can be monitored.
A comprehensive review of academic research reveals that bias-driven racial/ethnic discrimination obstructs key pillars of well-being, including education, school-to-work transition, employment, housing, and health.
In education, bias can hinder the trajectories of visible minority students in three ways: underrepresentation in children’s books and secondary school textbooks, bias among teachers and career counsellors, and bias among classmates. For instance, visible minority students who perform equally well as majority students on blindly graded tests receive lower scores in non-blind assessments – a pattern seen across several EU countries, including Italy, where the gap widens with higher teacher bias. Likewise, even visible minority students with similar abilities as majority students are more likely to be steered toward lower-tier secondary tracks.
Low educational attainment and hiring discrimination at entry level are major obstacles to a smooth school-to-work transition. However, visible minority youth face additional barriers, including discrimination in access to work-based learning opportunities during formal education, such as internships and apprenticeships, and disproportionate exposure to disciplinary actions, including by law enforcement. In Denmark, for example, immediate descendants of immigrants are nearly 50% more likely than their Danish-born peers to be arrested without subsequent conviction, with this gap widening for those of non-European descent.
In employment, bias-driven racial/ethnic discrimination occurs both during and after hiring. A plethora of correspondence studies confirm strong hiring discrimination against non-White applicants, with the gap persisting even when fictitious applicants include reassuring information about their employability and productivity in their CVs, suggesting that bias, not just risk assessment, is at play. In France, White applicants receive 45%, 80%, and 100% more interview invitations than those with similar CVs with Asian, North African/Middle Eastern, or sub-Saharan African names, respectively. Discrimination also limits visible minorities’ promotion prospects – not only disadvantaging them despite similar performance but also restricting their ability to reach their full potential. A study in a French grocery chain found that visible minority employees performed worse under biased managers but outperformed their majority peers under unbiased supervision. Finally, tentative evidence from Germany suggests that visible minorities may also face firing discrimination.
Bias-driven racial/ethnic discrimination is a reality in housing, particularly in the private rental market. In Ireland, Irish applicants are 15% more likely than Polish, and Polish 40% more likely than Nigerian applicants to be invited for apartment viewings. While no correspondence study in Europe has examined discrimination in the private sale housing market, evidence suggests that bias hinders visible minorities’ access to homeownership through discrimination in mortgage lending.
In health, extensive evidence links discrimination to poorer mental health among visible minorities, with US research confirming a causal impact. This, in turn, can harm physical health by triggering stress pathways. Bias among healthcare providers may exacerbate these effects, but further research, especially in Europe, is needed to confirm this.
Developing precise indicators that isolate the full impact of bias-driven discrimination on visible minorities, and nothing else, is challenging. There is a trade‑off between measurement precision and the availability (and cost) of the required data, resulting in two categories of indicators.
The first category consists of “core indicators”, which offer high availability but limited precision. These rely on EU-wide surveys, notably allowing for comparisons of disparities between native‑born individuals with two native‑born parents and those with at least one foreign-born parent of non-European background. While these indicators can be adjusted for key socio-economic factors that influence disparities independently of discrimination, sample size constraints limit the scope of adjustments, leaving several unobserved factors out of the analysis, which may either underestimate or overestimate the impact of bias-driven racial/ethnic discrimination.
The second category is composed of “advanced indicators”, divided into two subgroups. First, “enhanced indicators”, which offer greater precision than core indicators but require specific administrative data that are available in at most half of EU countries. Second, “exploratory indicators”, which provide the highest precision but are limited in availability due to their reliance on original data collection methods, such as field experiments, including correspondence and audit studies.
The proposed indicators primarily focus on recently arrived populations of non-European background, as they form a visible minority group common to many EU countries and for which cross-EU comparable data are most readily available. However, this group only partially represents the full spectrum of visible minorities in the EU who are at risk of racialisation. Many have deeper roots, at least in some EU countries, including third-generation EU citizens of non-European descent, Black populations from overseas territories, and Roma people. To ensure a comprehensive assessment of antiracism efforts, it is essential to extend indicators to these long-established visible minorities. This report concludes by outlining options for countries to better incorporate these minorities in national statistics.
