The Jobs Again Reform in Greece

5. International case studies: Lessons for Greece

Abstract

This chapter presents international case studies – France, Singapore, Austria, and Estonia – to inform Greece’s ILA and CVET reforms. Analysed through the five-dimension framework, the cases highlight diverse quality assurance models, with strong provider accreditation and labour market alignment but limited use of performance-based funding. Lessons from these systems offer practical insights for improving training relevance, oversight, and governance in Greece.

An initial desk-based review of 19 countries and regions,1 some of which currently operate individual learning accounts (ILA) while others have comparable systems or are in the process of implementing an ILA model, reveals that performance-based funding is rarely used as a primary quality assurance mechanism. Instead, most countries focus on provider accreditation, upfront licensing, and certification requirements to regulate training quality.

Among the countries examined, the most common quality control measures include strict accreditation frameworks for providers, sector-based certification requirements for ILA participation, and additional eligibility criteria for accessing ILA subsidies. These measures often aim to ensure alignment with national workforce priorities, employer partnerships, independent quality audits, and compliance with specific pedagogical standards.

Among the most mature and well-regulated ILA systems, France and Singapore stand out as leading examples. Both countries have developed comprehensive regulatory frameworks that ensure ILA-funded training aligns closely with national skills strategies, employer needs, and lifelong learning objectives. Their models incorporate rigorous accreditation processes, sector-specific validation mechanisms, and ongoing oversight, setting high benchmarks for quality assurance in ILAs.

France and Singapore offer two distinct but complementary approaches that provide valuable insights for Greece’s ILA system. France’s Compte Personnel de Formation (CPF) model emphasises strong accreditation mechanisms, mandatory certification standards, and transparent enrolment processes, ensuring that only high-quality providers receive public funding. This structured yet flexible system balances learner autonomy with robust quality controls. Singapore, on the other hand, integrates data-driven policymaking, employer collaboration, and long-term impact assessments, ensuring that training remains closely aligned with labour market needs. Its focus on work-based learning and rigorous outcome tracking highlights the benefits of linking training programmes to real employment outcomes. By drawing on these models, Greece can enhance quality assurance, improve labour market alignment, and strengthen the accountability of its ILA system.

In addition to France and Singapore, Austria and Estonia have been included as case studies. Austria's approach emphasises practical skills acquisition through its dual education system, supported by comprehensive accreditation processes and industry collaboration. Estonia, while in the early stages of implementing a comprehensive ILA system, offers insights into aligning vocational training with labour market forecasts and enhancing digital infrastructure for monitoring training outcomes.

These case studies – France, Singapore, Austria, and Estonia – will be analysed using the five-dimension framework presented earlier, allowing for a structured comparison of best practices, challenges, and policy approaches.

Case study 1: Singapore

Singapore has developed one of the most comprehensive and data-driven adult learning systems, ensuring alignment with labour market needs while measuring training effectiveness through structured performance indicators. The SkillsFuture initiative lies at the heart of Singapore’s approach, integrating financial incentives, policy interventions, and public-private collaboration to facilitate lifelong learning and workforce adaptability. The SkillsFuture Credit provides funding for individuals aged 25 and above to undertake subsidised training courses, while SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidies support career transitions in response to evolving industry demands. While many countries incorporate data into policy decisions, Singapore distinguishes itself through the systematic and centralised use of data-driven policymaking, systematically monitoring the labour market impact of training through performance-based tracking mechanisms.

Ensuring Minimum Standards

The SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) agency is responsible for accrediting and registering training providers, ensuring only high-quality institutions deliver publicly funded training (SkillsFuture, 2022[1]; SkillsFuture, 2024[2]). This involves a structured approach, starting with organisation registration, followed by course accreditation, and then continuous monitoring and quality assurance. At the heart of this process is the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework, one of the most advanced skills frameworks globally. The WSQ system allows Singapore to align training with industry needs in a highly standardised and effective way, ensuring learners acquire competencies that are both relevant and transferable (Training Partners Gateway, n.d.[3]).

To become a Registered Training Provider (RTP), organisations must first go through an Organisation Registration (OR) process. To be eligible, they must be legally established as a registered entity in Singapore, such as with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) or the Registry of Societies. Additionally, they need to show they have at least one year of training and education experience, with a record of running courses at least four times in the previous year. The qualifications of trainers and curriculum developers are also evaluated, with key certifications like the Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA) or the Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance (ACLP) serving as benchmarks of instructional competence.

Following registration, providers can apply for course accreditation under the WSQ system, which ensures that course content aligns with national competency frameworks outlining the skills required across different industries (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2022[4]).

The WSQ's modular and flexible structure allows learners to gain Statements of Attainment as they progress through individual modules, which can be built up towards full qualifications. Providers must develop thorough assessment strategies that effectively evaluate learners' competencies, ensuring that training outcomes meet industry standards. Throughout the accreditation period, compliance with SSG's quality standards is compulsory, with regular audits and feedback mechanisms in place to maintain consistency and relevance.

Ongoing monitoring and quality assurance are essential to maintaining high training standards. The Training Provider Quality Assurance framework provides a comprehensive assessment of each RTP, ensuring that providers adopt systematic approaches to course delivery and maintain sound governance practices. Regular evaluations and trainee feedback are used to assess both instructional effectiveness and learner satisfaction, enabling continuous improvement.

Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning

Singapore places a strong emphasis on transparency in course selection and career guidance, ensuring that learners can access relevant training. The SkillsFuture portal provides a centralised platform where individuals can search for subsidised programmes, assess course relevance, and receive career transition guidance. In addition, the government partners with public employment services to direct unemployed or at-risk workers towards suitable training options.

Notably, the SkillsFuture portal also includes channels for participant feedback or complaints, enabling learners to raise concerns if training experiences fail to meet expected standards. This structured approach ensures that substandard providers can be flagged for further review, thereby safeguarding participants and maintaining overall training quality.

A key feature of Singapore’s system is its integration of training with employment, allowing individuals to reskill while remaining in the workforce. The Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) have supported 36 000 workers between 2019 and 2023, with 50% of participants aged 40 and above transitioning to long-term job roles in sectors with growth potential.

Mid-career workers benefit from the SkillsFuture Work-Study Programme (WSP), which enables graduates from polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) to gain higher qualifications while acquiring work experience. Studies indicate that Work-Study graduates experience wage premiums of 9‑11% compared to peers who enter the workforce directly, with these advantages persisting over several years. This model demonstrates how work-integrated learning contributes to long-term career progression and wage growth.

Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact

Singapore actively monitors and evaluates training effectiveness through structured post-training mechanisms. The SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP) tracks job placement rates as a key measure of success. Since its launch in April 2022, 5 000 trainees have participated, with 54% securing new employment, demonstrating the programme’s effectiveness in linking training to employability. In 2019, 77% of Singaporean employers reported that SkillsFuture training programmes enabled employees to assume greater responsibilities.

Post-training evaluation is conducted through the Training Quality and Outcomes Measurement (TRAQOM) initiative, which includes two surveys. The first, conducted upon course completion, captures trainees' perceptions of course quality. The second, conducted three months later, assesses the extent to which the course has impacted job performance and career progression.

Singapore also conducts longitudinal studies on the long-term impact of training. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), in collaboration with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), tracks employment records and income levels over extended periods, providing valuable insights into wage progression and job retention trends.

Performance-based Monitoring

While Singapore does not employ punitive funding mechanisms for underperformance, it does integrate performance-based tracking elements to ensure that training remains effective. Instead of penalising providers, the system emphasises assessing training outcomes through labour market success indicators, including:

• Job placement rates, using SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme data to measure training effectiveness.

• Wage increases post-training, with long-term tracking of participants’ earnings growth.

• Transition rates into high-growth industries, ensuring that training programmes support national economic priorities.

Co-ordination and Governance

Singapore’s approach to co-ordination is characterised by a highly centralised approach, which would be difficult to replicate elsewhere, primarily co‑ordinated by SSG, which operated under the Ministry of Education. The SSG collaborated closely with other agencies, such as Workforce Singapore (WSG) under the Ministry of Manpower, and the Economic Development Board (EDB) under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. This integrated framework ensures cohesive policy implementation and reduces redundancy.

Case study 2: France

France's Compte Personnel de Formation (CPF) exemplifies a structured approach to quality assurance in vocational training, ensuring that training programmes align with labour market needs and enhance individual skills. As an integral component of France’s national skills strategy, the CPF mandates strict accreditation requirements for training providers and offering a transparent system for learners to access training opportunities. While performance-based funding is not the primary regulatory tool, France upholds training quality through rigorous accreditation standards and recognised certifications to ensure training quality.

Ensuring Minimum Standards

The French Government introduced a national quality reference framework as part of the law of 5 September 2018 (France Compétences, 2019[5]). This framework mandates that all vocational education and training (VET) providers receiving public funds, including those offering CPF-funded courses, obtain Qualiopi certification, which became mandatory on 1 January 2022, for all training providers receiving public funds, including CPF financing. This certification ensures that only high-quality training organisations can offer CPF-funded courses, reinforcing standardised accreditation and eligibility criteria. These include the relevance of the training offer and its alignment with participant needs, the transparency of the information provided to participants, the resources and skills available within the organisation to deliver high-quality training, monitoring and evaluation processes to measure training effectiveness, and a commitment to continuous improvement.

Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning

France has developed a transparent and accessible system for individuals to select and enrol in CPF-funded training. The moncompteformation.gouv.fr platform allows users to view their training rights, search for eligible courses, and register directly with accredited providers, ensuring a streamlined course selection process. While no structured pre-training self-assessment mechanisms are explicitly outlined, CPF’s emphasis on individual skill development needs ensures that learners are guided toward training opportunities that match their career goals.

Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact

The CPF system prioritises certification and recognised qualifications as key indicators of training success. Training programmes funded through CPF often lead to formally recognised qualifications, ensuring that the skills acquired are validated and transferable within the labour market. The CPF platform also incorporates user feedback mechanisms, allowing individuals to rate and review training providers, contributing to continuous quality improvement.

While detailed post-training evaluation mechanisms are not extensively documented, the CPF framework places a strong emphasis on transparency and effectiveness. The system plans to introduce more structured quality measures, further enhancing accountability and training impact assessment. This suggests an ongoing commitment to refining training evaluation processes and ensuring that CPF-funded courses deliver meaningful skill development.

Performance-based Monitoring

Like most ILA systems, France does not rely on direct performance-based funding models. The CPF operates primarily through individual training accounts funded by employer contributions and public subsidies. Rather than conditioning funding on employment outcomes, France enforces strict quality assurance through mandatory accreditation. The Qualiopi certification indirectly promotes high performance standards among providers, ensuring that CPF-funded courses meet consistent and rigorous quality benchmarks.

Skill enhancement is measured primarily through the attainment of recognised qualifications and certifications, ensuring that training remains aligned with national workforce needs. Although specific skill progression metrics are not extensively detailed, the integration of training with national qualifications frameworks ensures standardised learning outcomes. This structured approach maintains a high level of initial quality assurance while allowing for learner flexibility in course selection.

To further strengthen trust and safeguard users, France launched a new audit-based quality evaluation process in 2025 for CPF-funded training. This initiative complements existing mechanisms like Qualiopi, where regular and exhaustive evaluations are conducted to ensure that training providers maintain high standards of quality. These evaluations include reviewing educational processes, assessing the quality, conditions and effectiveness of training programmes, and checking a programme’s suitability for the participants’ career plans. Despite advancements with Qualiopi, challenges such as detecting fraud and addressing deficiencies in certification processes have emerged. The government is actively working to enhance supervision and ongoing evaluation to address these concerns.

Co‑ordination and Governance

France’s CPF governance framework defines the roles of key institutions involved in its regulation and administration. France Compétences, created in 2018, is responsible for overseeing the CPF and co‑ordinating related training systems. It registers eligible training programmes on the CPF platform, and regulates funding distribution, and certification requirements within the CPF framework.

France Compétences is responsible for regulating training standards and managing the national training levy, while the Ministry of Labour defines policy priorities and may offer targeted top-ups via the Public Employment Service. The Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations regulates training quality, administers CPF accounts and operates the digital platform, ensuring financial transactions between learners and training providers. Employers, unions, and industry representatives contribute to CPF governance by identifying skill needs and co-financing training through mechanisms such as abondements (top-ups).

Co‑ordination across sectors integrates career guidance, training provision, and employment services. Public employment agencies and regional authorities assist jobseekers in selecting CPF-funded courses, while training providers align their offerings with national qualification frameworks. Monitoring and data-sharing mechanisms track CPF participation, attainment, and funding allocation. The CPF’s digital platform centralises these data, supporting continuous assessment of training uptake and labour market relevance.

Case study 3: Austria

Ensuring Minimum Standards

To maintain consistency and quality, Austria requires training providers to be accredited by the Austrian Quality Assurance Agency (AQ Austria) and comply with nationally-accepted quality standards, such as ISO 9001 for quality management (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, n.d.[6]). Quality assurance is maintained through regular evaluations of training providers, focusing on instructor qualifications, teaching methodologies, and learner support services. Providers must demonstrate that their courses are designed and delivered using evidence-based pedagogical approaches, ensuring that learners acquire both theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Digital learning environments are also subject to quality checks, ensuring that online courses meet the same standards as in-person training.

Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning

Austria has developed a transparent and accessible system for individuals to select and enrol in ILA-funded training (European Institute of Public Administration, n.d.[7]). The AMS online platform allows users to explore available training options, view eligibility criteria, and register directly with accredited providers. To support informed decision-making, the platform provides detailed information on course content, learning outcomes, and success rates, enabling individuals to choose training that aligns with their career goals.

Pre-training assessments play a key role in ensuring that learners enrol in courses appropriate to their skill levels. Participants are required to complete competency assessments before starting their training, allowing providers to tailor course content to individual needs. This personalised approach enhances learning effectiveness and increases the likelihood of successful outcomes.

Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact

The Upper Austrian training account tracks some general participation metrics, such as overall participation, demographics, types of training programmes and regional/sector differences in participation. However, concrete key performance indicators (KPIs) such as certification rates seem not to be measured.

Post-training evaluations assess the extent to which participants have improved their skills and advanced their careers. These evaluations are conducted through follow-up surveys, which capture feedback on job placement rates, career progression, and wage increases. Independent assessments are also carried out to validate training effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.

To measure the long-term impact of training, Austria tracks employment outcomes over a three-year period, monitoring job retention rates, income growth, and transitions to higher-skilled roles (Statistics Austria, 2025[8]). This longitudinal approach provides insights into the lasting benefits of vocational training and helps policymakers assess the overall effectiveness of the ILA system.

Performance-based Monitoring

Austria integrates some performance monitoring into its quality assurance framework. Training providers are evaluated based on key performance indicators, including employment rates, job retention, and participant satisfaction. Providers that consistently achieve high outcomes receive priority access to public funding, creating incentives for continuous improvement.

Employment outcomes are assessed through the AMS labour market tracking system, which monitors aspects such as employment status, job retention etc. to evaluate the overall effectiveness of training programmes, without linking these outcomes to specific providers. In some cases, this data is supplemented by self-reported satisfaction feedback, though its collection is limited to specific training schemes and is currently not applied consistently across all training activities and thus does not play a crucial role in funding decisions related to ILAs.

Further information on the exact performance indicators and what the self-reported satisfaction surveys entails is not available.

Co-ordination and Governance

The governance of Austria’s ILAs involves multiple ministries and agencies, each with distinct, yet complementary roles (Cedefop, 2024[9]). The Federal Ministry of Labour and Economy oversees the Public Employment Service (AMS), which administers key schemes supporting individuals in accessing training and obtaining vocational qualifications. It also leads Austria’s general efforts on creating a robust ILA, based on an interministerial agreement. The Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research remains responsible mainly for formal adult education, including adult basic education and lifelong guidance initiatives, providing financial support for general adult education, excluding Austria’s apprenticeship system.

Social partners, such as the Chamber of Commerce (Wirtschaftskammer) and the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer), significantly influence adult learning policies as they have autonomy in bargaining and through organised interest groups and involvement in the government of the AMS, provide important input to the ministries. Additionally, these organisations operate their own vocational training institutes – the Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut (WIFI) and the Berufsförderungsinstitut (BFI), respectively-offering a wide range of continuing vocational education and training (CVET) programmes. At the regional level, the nine federal states (Länder) have established agencies to support job-related lifelong learning, exemplified by the Vienna Employment Promotion Fund (Wiener ArbeitnehmerInnen Förderungsfonds, waff). These regional bodies enjoy considerable autonomy, allowing them to tailor adult learning initiatives to local needs while aligning with national frameworks.

This setup ensures that while the Ministry of Labour and Economy focuses on employment-related training, the Ministry of Education addresses broader educational needs and policies. Co‑ordination between these ministries is facilitated through collaborative frameworks and agreements, aiming to align educational offerings with labour market demands. Despite the clear division of responsibilities, there seems to be a concerted effort to prevent overlap and ensure cohesive policy implementation. Regional governments also play a significant role in Austria, possessing autonomy to tailor adult learning initiatives to local needs.

Case study 4: Estonia

Estonia is in the early phases of implementing a comprehensive ILA system. Currently, adult education and lifelong learning are primarily supported through supply-side funding and established institutions. Several aspects of the adult learning system may require further development before a fully operational ILA system can be effectively introduced. As a result, Estonia is focusing on strengthening existing structures to address issues such as unequal participation, alignment with labour market needs and enhanced quality assurance for adult education providers (Cedefop, 2024[10]).

Ensuring Minimum Standards

Estonia has implemented a comprehensive system for accrediting vocational education and training (VET) providers, focusing on quality assurance and alignment with labour market needs (OECD, 2025[11]). The accreditation process is overseen by the Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA).

Estonia’s quality assurance system is based on the European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) guidelines, Cedefop recommendations, and the Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020, which emphasises management culture, self-assessment, staff training, data use, and stakeholder involvement.

VET providers undergo an initial assessment of professional fields in which they want to offer programmes to get accredited. A positive evaluation from the Estonian Quality Agency for Education (HAKA) accredits providers to offer programmes in these disciplines for six years without requiring ex-ante programme evaluation.

As of 2018, Estonia has been moving towards accrediting groups of programmes within a field of education and training, rather than individual programmes. This approach aims to streamline the process and provide more flexibility to providers.

Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning

Estonia employs a system to ensure quality in student participation and learning within CVET that uses mechanisms focusing on guidance and appropriate programme selection rather than pre- and post-assessment. This is combined with previously mentioned adherence to course delivery standards through the stringent accreditation process under the Ministry of Education.

A significant portion of VET programmes involve work-based learning such as apprenticeships, thus providing students practical work experiences.

In terms of non-formal courses, Estonia has started to collect data via the JUHAN system but no further information on the type of data and usage of data is publicly available.

Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact

Estonia's CVET system places significant emphasis on measuring training outcomes and long-term impact, using a combination of certification processes, student feedback, and broader performance-based monitoring mechanisms.

Upon completion of a VET programme, students receive nationally recognised qualifications aligned with the Estonian Qualifications Framework (EQF), ensuring they possess the necessary competencies for specific roles. Student feedback is actively gathered through course evaluations, surveys, and other mechanisms, informing continuous improvements in course content and teaching methods.

Furthermore, Estonia tracks the labour market outcomes of VET graduates, monitoring employment rates and career progression to assess the long-term impact of training. Despite the long-standing policy of paid study leave in Estonia, no statistical data on the use of study leaves and no formal evaluation of their effects are available.

Performance-based Monitoring

Estonia does not conduct specific performance-based monitoring activities.

Training providers of Estonian Training-Related Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) must be registered in the Estonian Education Information System EHIS, deliver courses aligned with specified curricula, and engage in monthly reporting to the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund. However, detailed information on what these specified curricula entail, or the reporting data are not publicly available.

Co-ordination and Governance

The governance and co‑ordination of ILAs in Estonia involve collaboration between key ministries, agencies, and social partners, each with distinct but interconnected responsibilities.

At the national level, the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Social Affairs share primary responsibility for supporting adult learning. The Ministry of Education and Research is responsible for ensuring the quality and accessibility of educational opportunities, including both formal and non-formal learning. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Social Affairs, through the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund (EUIF), identifies target groups that would benefit from further education and provides financial support for training.

Collaboration between ministries is complemented by the involvement of key stakeholders such as the Estonian Qualifications Authority (Kutsekoda) and OSKA, the national system for anticipating future skill demands. While OSKA's recommendations are binding for the support provided by the EUIF, they remain advisory for initiatives funded by the Ministry of Education and Research, reflecting a balance between centralised guidance and institutional autonomy.

Social partners, including employer organisations and trade unions, play a consultative role in shaping adult learning policies. However, their influence is relatively limited compared to other European Union countries, with collective bargaining and co‑ordinated training initiatives being less prevalent. Employers are expected to contribute to workforce upskilling through internal training and financial support for external courses, while individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their own professional development.

Ongoing efforts to improve co‑ordination, expand digital platforms like JUHAN, and enhance the quality assurance framework aim to create a more inclusive and responsive adult learning system in Estonia.

References

[6] Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, S. (n.d.), Accreditation and quality assurance, https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en/Topics/Higher-education---universities/Higher-education-system/HS-QSG.html (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[9] Cedefop (2024), “Individual Learning Accounts: Case Study Austria (Draft)”, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/draft_case_study_at_clean.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).

[10] Cedefop (2024), Individual Learning Accounts: Case Study Estonia (Draft), https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/final_case_ee_formatted_rev_gh_ms_clean.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[7] European Institute of Public Administration (n.d.), Introduction of a New AMS Job Search Engine for More Transparency in the Austrian Labour Market, https://www.eipa.eu/de/epsa/introduction-of-a-new-ams-job-search-engine-for-more-transparency-in-the-austrian-labour-market/ (accessed on 18 August 2025).

[5] France Compétences (2019), The law on the professional future: the quality requirement, https://www.francecompetences.fr/fiche/la-loi-avenir-professionnel-lexigence-qualite/ (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[11] OECD (2025), “Ensuring quality in VET and higher education: Getting quality assurance right”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 118, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/812ff006-en.

[4] Singapore Ministry of Education (2022), SkillsFuture Accreditation, https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20221129-skillsfuture-accreditation (accessed on 28 August 2025).

[2] SkillsFuture (2024), Singapore Agency Terms for Training Providers, https://www.skillsfuture.gov.sg/docs/default-source/resources/terms-conditions/ssg_term_for_tps_010324_rpd_v01final21d3a692-b7c6-4d0a-82ee-af1e28806afa.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[1] SkillsFuture (2022), Singapore Agency Terms for Training Providers, https://www.skillsfuture.gov.sg/docs/default-source/resources/terms-conditions/ssg_tp-tc_17102022_rpd_v01final.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).

[8] Statistics Austria (2025), “Monitoring of Education-Related Employment Behaviour”, https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2025/01/20250128BibErEN.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[3] Training Partners Gateway (n.d.), Organisation Registration for First-Time Training Providers, https://www.tpgateway.gov.sg/plan-courses/organisation-registration-for-first-time-training-provider/apply-for-organisation-registration (accessed on 26 February 2025).

Note

← 1.  Austria (Upper Austria); Croatia; Cyprus; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Italy (Tuscany); Latvia; Lithuania; Malta; Netherlands; Poland; Romania; Scotland (United Kingdom); Singapore; Slovak Republic; United States (Michigan & Washington).